An Introduction To IG - 6th Edition PDF

For easy reference: a list of frequently The history of this book is long, in Internet time.
The
used abbreviations and acronyms original text and the overall approach, including
AN INTRODUCTION TO the five-basket methodology, were developed
AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation
in 1997 for a training course on information
INTERNET
ccTLD country code Top-Level Domain
and communications technology (ICT) policy
CIDR Classless Inter-Domain Routing
for government officials from Commonwealth
DMCA Digital Millennium Copyright Act
countries. In 2004, Diplo published a print version
DNS Domain Name System
of its Internet governance materials, in a booklet
GOVERNANCE
DRM Digital Rights Management
entitled Internet Governance Issues, Actors and
GAC Governmental Advisory Committee
Divides. This booklet formed part of the Information
gTLD generic Top-Level Domain Society Library, a Diplo initiative driven by Stefano
HTML HyperText Markup Language Baldi, Eduardo Gelbstein, and Jovan Kurbalija.
IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Special thanks are due to Eduardo Gelbstein, who
ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned made substantive contributions to the sections
Names and Numbers
dealing with cybersecurity, spam, and privacy, and
Jovan Kurbalija
ICC International Chamber of Commerce
AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE Jovan Kurbalija to Vladimir Radunovic, Ginger Paque, and Stephanie
aICT Information and Communications
Borg-Psaila who updated the course materials.
Technology
Comments and suggestions from other colleagues
IDN Internationalized Domain Name
are acknowledged in the text. Stefano Baldi, Eduardo
IETF Internet Engineering Task Force
An Introduction to Internet Governance provides a comprehensive overview Gelbstein, and Vladimir Radunovic all contributed
IGF Internet Governance Forum
of the main issues and actors in this field. The book is written in a clear and significantly to developing the concepts behind
IP Internet Protocol
accessible way, supplemented with numerous figures and illustrations. It the illustrations in the book. In 2008, a special,
IPR Intellectual Property Rights
revised version of the book, entitled simply An
ISOC Internet Society focuses on technical, legal, economic, development, and sociocultural aspects
Introduction to Internet Governance, was published
ISP Internet Service Provider of Internet governance, providing a brief introduction, a summary of major in cooperation with NIXI India on the occasion of
ITU International Telecommunication Union questions and controversies, and a survey of different views and approaches the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2008 held in
IXP Internet eXchange Point for each issue. The book offers a practical framework for analysis and Hyderabad, India. In 2009, a revised third edition
Jovan Kurbalija
MoU Memorandum of Understanding was published in the cooperation with the Ministry
discussion of Internet governance.
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation of Communication and Information Technology of
and Development
Egypt Internet Governance. The fourth edition (2010)
PKI Public Key Infrastructure Since 1997 more than 1500 diplomats, computer specialists, civil society
was produced in partnership with the Secretariat
S&T Science and Technology activists, and academics have attended training courses based on the text and of the Africa-Caribbean-Pacific Group of Countries
SGML Standard Generalized Markup Language approach presented in this book. With every delivery of the course, materials and the European Union. The fifth edition (2012)
sTLD sponsored Top-Level Domain are updated and improved. This regular updating makes the book particularly was published in cooperation with the Azerbaijan
TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol/ Diplomatic Academy (ADA).
Internet Protocol
useful as a teaching resource for introductory studies in Internet governance.
TLD Top-Level Domain
TRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UDRP Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution
Policy
UNECOSOC United Nations Economic and Social Council
UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization
VoIP Voice-over Internet Protocol
6th Edition
W3C World Wide Web Consortium
WGIG Working Group on Internet Governance
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
WSIS World Summit on the Information Society
6th Edition
XML eXtensible Markup Language
The history of this book is long, in Internet time. The For easy reference: a list of frequently
original text and the overall approach, including used abbreviations and acronyms
the five-basket methodology, were developed
Society Library, a Diplo initiative driven by Stefano gTLD generic Top-Level Domain
Baldi, Eduardo Gelbstein, and Jovan Kurbalija. HTML HyperText Markup Language
Special thanks are due to Eduardo Gelbstein, who IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
made substantive contributions to the sections ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers
to Vladimir Radunovic, Ginger Paque, and Stephanie
Technology
Gelbstein, and Vladimir Radunovic all contributed
significantly to developing the concepts behind
the illustrations in the book. In 2008, a special,
Introduction to Internet Governance, was published ISOC Internet Society
in cooperation with NIXI India on the occasion of ISP Internet Service Provider
the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2008 held in ITU International Telecommunication Union
Hyderabad, India. In 2009, a revised third edition IXP Internet eXchange Point
was published in the cooperation with the Ministry MoU Memorandum of Understanding
of Communication and Information Technology of OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development
was produced in partnership with the Secretariat PKI Public Key Infrastructure
of the Africa-Caribbean-Pacific Group of Countries S&T Science and Technology
and the European Union. The fifth edition (2012) SGML Standard Generalized Markup Language
was published in cooperation with the Azerbaijan sTLD sponsored Top-Level Domain
Diplomatic Academy (ADA). TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol/
Internet Protocol
Property Rights
Policy
AN INTRODUCTION TO
INTERNET
GOVERNANCE
Jovan Kurbalija
6th Edition
Published by DiploFoundation (2014)
Malta: Anutruf, Ground Floor,

Hriereb Street,
Msida, MSD 1675, Malta
Switzerland: DiploFoundation
7bis, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland
E-mail: diplo@diplomacy.edu
Website: http://www.diplomacy.edu
Cover: the Argument by Design www.tabd.co.uk

Editing: Mary Murphy
Illustrations: Zoran Marcetic Mara & Vladimir Veljaevi
Layout & Prepress: the Argument by Design
Printing: Aleksandar Nedeljkov
Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under

http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc-nd/3.0/
The translation and publication of this book in other languages is encouraged. For more
information, please contact diplo@diplomacy.edu
Any reference to a particular product in this book serves merely as an example and should not be
considered an endorsement or recommendation of the product itself.
ISBN: 978-99932-53-28-0
Contents
Foreword..................................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
What does Internet governance mean?....................................................................................................... 5
The evolution of Internet governance.......................................................................................................... 7
The Internet Governance Cognitive Toolkit.............................................................................................. 15
Approaches and patterns........................................................................................................................... 17
Analogies................................................................................................................................................... 23
Classification of Internet governance issues.............................................................................................. 28
Endnotes................................................................................................................................................... 31
Section 2: The infrastructure and standardisation basket . . . . . . . . 33

The telecommunication infrastructure....................................................................................................... 36
Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP).................................................................... 38
The Domain Name System (DNS)........................................................................................................... 42
Root servers............................................................................................................................................... 46
Internet access: Internet service providers (ISPs)...................................................................................... 48
Internet access: Internet bandwidth providers (IBPs)................................................................................ 50
Network neutrality.................................................................................................................................... 51
Web standards........................................................................................................................................... 60
Cloud computing...................................................................................................................................... 61
Convergence: Internet telecommunication multimedia............................................................................. 64
Cybersecurity............................................................................................................................................. 66
Encryption................................................................................................................................................ 72
Spam......................................................................................................................................................... 74
Endnotes................................................................................................................................................... 77
Section 3: The legal basket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Legal instruments...................................................................................................................................... 87
Jurisdiction................................................................................................................................................ 92
Intellectual property rights (IPR).............................................................................................................. 96
Trademarks.............................................................................................................................................. 101
Patents..................................................................................................................................................... 102
Cybercrime.............................................................................................................................................. 102
Labour law............................................................................................................................................... 104
Privacy and data protection..................................................................................................................... 105
The international regulation of privacy and data protection.................................................................... 108
Endnotes................................................................................................................................................. 111
Section 4: The economic basket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

E-commerce............................................................................................................................................ 120
Internet CONTENT economy............................................................................................................... 124
Internet ACCESS economy.................................................................................................................... 125
E-banking, e-money, and virtual currencies............................................................................................. 127
Consumer protection............................................................................................................................... 130
Taxation................................................................................................................................................... 132
Digital signatures..................................................................................................................................... 133
Endnotes................................................................................................................................................. 136
Section 5: The development basket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

The digital divide..................................................................................................................................... 144
Developing telecommunications and Internet infrastructures................................................................. 146
Financial support..................................................................................................................................... 148
Sociocultural aspects................................................................................................................................ 149
Policy and institutional aspects................................................................................................................ 150
Endnotes................................................................................................................................................. 152
Section 6: The sociocultural basket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Human rights.......................................................................................................................................... 157
Rights of people with disabilities............................................................................................................. 159
Content policy......................................................................................................................................... 160
Education................................................................................................................................................ 164
Child safety online.................................................................................................................................. 166
Multilingualism and cultural diversity..................................................................................................... 168
Global public goods................................................................................................................................. 169
Endnotes................................................................................................................................................. 172
Section 7: Internet governance actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Governments........................................................................................................................................... 179
The business sector.................................................................................................................................. 185
Civil society............................................................................................................................................. 187
International organisations...................................................................................................................... 188
The technical community........................................................................................................................ 189
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)............................................... 191
Endnotes................................................................................................................................................. 195
Section 8: Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

A journey through Internet governance.................................................................................................. 199
The Internet governance cube.................................................................................................................. 200
About Diplo............................................................................................................................................ 201
Geneva Internet Platform....................................................................................................................... 202
About the author..................................................................................................................................... 203
Foreword
In 2004, when I told my friends what I was doing as a member of WGIG

the Working Group on Internet Governance they often called on me to
fix their printers or install new software. As far as they were concerned, I was
doing something related to computers. I remember taking a quick poll of my
fellow WGIG members asking them how they explained to their friends,
partners, and children what they were doing. Like me, they too were having
difficulty. This is one of the reasons I started designing and preparing Diplos
first text and drawings related to Internet governance.
Today, just ten years later, the same people who asked me to install their
printers are coming back to me with questions about how to keep ownership
of their data on Facebook or how to ensure their children can navigate the
Internet safely. Increasingly, they are concerned about a possible cyberwar and
the online risks for water supply, power plants, and other critical infrastructure
in their cities and countries. How far we all have come!
Internet governance is moving increasingly into the public eye. The more
modern society depends on the Internet, the more relevant Internet
governance will be. Far from being the remit of some select few, Internet
governance concerns all of us to a lesser or greater extent, whether we are
one of the 2.9 billion using the Internet or a non-user who depends on the
facilities it services.
Internet governance is obviously more relevant for those who are deeply
integrated in the e-world, whether through e-business or networking on
Facebook. Yet it has a broad reach. Government officials, military personnel,
lawyers, diplomats, and others who are involved in either providing public
goods or preserving public stability are also concerned. Internet governance,
and in particular the protection of privacy and other human rights, is a focal
point for civil society activists and non-governmental organisations. For
academia and innovators worldwide, Internet governance must ensure that the
Internet remains open for development and innovation. Creative inventors of
1
Internet Governance
tomorrows Google, Skype, Facebook, and Twitter are out there, somewhere,
browsing the Net. Their creativity and innovativeness should not be stifled;
rather they should be encouraged to develop new, more creative ways to use
the Internet.
It is my hope that this book provides a clear and accessible introduction to

Internet governance. For some of you, it will be your first encounter with the
subject. For others, it may serve as a reminder that what you are already doing
in your area of specialisation be it e-health, e-commerce, e-governance,
e-whatever is part of the broader family of Internet governance issues.
The underlying objective of such a diverse approach is to modestly contribute

towards preserving the Internet as an integrated and enabling medium for
billions of people worldwide. At the very least, I hope it whets your appetite
and encourages you to delve deeper into this remarkable and fluent subject.
Stay current. Follow developments on http://www.diplomacy.edu/capacity/IG
Jovan Kurbalija
Director of DiploFoundation
Head of the Geneva Internet Platform
September 2014
2
Chapitre 1
Introduction
Although Internet governance deals with the core of the digital world,
governance cannot be handled with a digital-binary logic of true/false
and good/bad. Instead, Internet governance demands many subtleties
and shades of meaning and perception; it thus requires an analogue
approach, covering a continuum of options and compromises.
Therefore, this book does not attempt to provide definite statements

on Internet governance issues. Rather, its aim is to propose a
practical framework for analysis, discussion, and resolution of
significant issues in the field.
Internet Governance
4
Introduction
Introduction
T
he controversy surrounding Internet governance starts with its
definition. Its not merely linguistic pedantry. The way the Internet is
defined reflects different perspectives, approaches, and policy interests.
Typically, telecommunication specialists see Internet governance through the
prism of the development of a technical infrastructure. Computer specialists
focus on the development of different standards and applications, such as
XML (eXtensible Markup Language) or Java. Communication specialists
stress the facilitation of communication. Human rights activists view Internet
governance from the perspective of freedom of expression, privacy, and
other basic human rights. Lawyers concentrate on jurisdiction and dispute
resolution. Politicians worldwide usually focus on issues that resonate
with their electorates, such as techno-optimism (more computers = more
education) and threats (Internet security, child protection). Diplomats are
mainly concerned with the process and protection of national interests. The
list of potentially conflicting professional perspectives of Internet governance
goes on.
What does Internet governance mean?
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)1 came up with the
following working definition of Internet governance:
Internet governance is the development and application by Governments,

the private sector, and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared
principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that
shape the evolution and use of the Internet.2
This rather broad working definition does not resolve the question of different
interpretations of two key terms: Internet and governance.
5
Internet Governance
Internet or internet and diplomatic signalling
Back in 2003, The Economist magazine started writing Internet with a lowercase i.
This change in editorial policy was inspired by the fact that the Internet had become
an everyday item, no longer unique and special enough to warrant an initial capital.
The word Internet followed the linguistic destiny of (t)elegraph, (t)elephone, (r)adio,
and (t)elevison, and other such inventions.
The question of writing Internet/internet with an upper or lowercase i re-emerged

at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Conference in Antalya (November
2006) where a political dimension was introduced when the term Internet appeared
in the ITU resolution on Internet governance with a lowercase i instead of the usual,
uppercase I. David Gross, the US ambassador in charge of Internet governance,
expressed concern that the ITU lowercase spelling might signal an intention to treat
the Internet like other telecommunication systems internationally governed by the
ITU. Some interpreted this as a diplomatic signal of the ITUs intention to play a more
prominent role in Internet governance.3
Internet
The term Internet does not cover all of the existing aspects of global digital
developments. Two other terms information society and information
and communication technology (ICT) are usually put forward as more
comprehensive. They include areas that are outside the Internet domain, such
as mobile telephony. The argument for the use of the term Internet, however,
is enhanced by the rapid transition of global communication towards the use
of Internet protocol (IP) as the main communications technical standard.
The already ubiquitous Internet continues to expand at a rapid rate, not only
in terms of the number of users but also in terms of the services that it offers,
notably voice-over Internet protocol (VoIP), which may displace conventional
telephony.
Governance
In the Internet governance debate, especially in the early phase of
WSIS 2003, controversy arose over the term governance and its various
interpretations. According to one interpretation, governance is synonymous
with government. Many national delegations had this initial understanding,
leading to the interpretation that Internet governance should be the business
of governments and consequently addressed at intergovernmental level
with the limited participation of other, mainly non-state actors.4 This
interpretation clashed with a broader meaning of the term governance,
which includes the governance of affairs of any institution, including non-
governmental ones.
6
Introduction
This was the meaning accepted by Internet communities, since it describes the
way in which the Internet has been governed since its early days.
The terminological confusion was further complicated by the translation

of the term governance into other languages. In Spanish, the term refers
primarily to public activities or government (gestin pblica, gestin del
sector pblico, and funcin de gobierno). The reference to public activities or
government also appears in French (gestion des affaires publiques, efficacit
de ladministration, qualit de ladministration, and mode de gouvernement).
Portuguese follows a similar pattern when referring to the public sector and
government (gesto pblica and administrao pblica).
The evolution of Internet governance

Early Internet governance (1970s1994)
The Internet started as a government project. In the late 1960s, the US
government sponsored the development of the Defense Advanced Research
Project Agency Network (DARPA Net), a resilient communication resource.
By the mid-1970s, with the invention of TCP/IP (Transmission Control
Protocol/Internet Protocol), this network evolved into what is known today as
the Internet. One of the key principles of the Internet is its distributed nature:
data packets can take different paths through the network, avoiding traditional
barriers and control mechanisms. This technological principle was matched by
a similar approach to regulating the Internet in its early stages: the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), established in 1986, managed the further
development of the Internet through a cooperative, consensus-based, decision-
making process, involving a wide variety of individuals. There was no central
government, no central planning, and no grand design.
This led many people to think that the Internet was somehow unique and that
it could offer an alternative to the politics of the modern world. In his famous
Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow said:
[the Internet] is inherently extra-national, inherently anti-sovereign and

your [states] sovereignty cannot apply to us. Weve got to figure things out
ourselves.5
The DNS war (19941998)

This decentralised approach to Internet governance soon began to change as
governments and the business sector realised the importance of the global
network. In 1994, the US National Science Foundation, which managed the
7
Internet Governance
key infrastructure of the Internet, decided to subcontract the management

of the domain name system (DNS) to a private US company called Network
Solutions Inc. (NSI). This was not well received by the Internet community
and led to the so-called DNS war.
This war brought new players into the picture: international organisations and
nation states. It ended in 1998 with the establishment of a new organisation,
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which
has become the focus of most Internet governance debates today.
The Word Summit on the Information Society (20032005)

WSIS, held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005), officially placed the question
of Internet governance on diplomatic agendas. The focus of the Geneva phase
of the summit, preceded by a number of Preparatory Committees (PrepComs)
and regional meetings, was rather broad, with a range of issues related to
information and communication put forward by participants. In fact, during
the first preparatory and regional meetings, the term Internet, let alone
Internet governance was not used.6 Internet governance was introduced to
the WSIS process during the West Asia regional meeting in February 2003,
after the Geneva summit became the key issue of the WSIS negotiations.
After prolonged negotiations and last-minute arrangements, the first WSIS

summit in Geneva (December 2003) agreed to establish the Working Group
on Internet Governance (WGIG). WGIG prepared a report which was
used as the basis for negotiations at the second WSIS summit held in Tunis
(November 2005). The WSIS Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
elaborated on the question of Internet governance, including adopting a
definition, listing Internet governance issues, and establishing the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF), a multistakeholder body convoked by the UN
Secretary General.
Developments in 2006
After the Tunis summit, three main developments and events marked the
Internet governance debate in 2006. First was the expiration of the existing
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the establishment of a new one
between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce. Some had hoped
that this event would change the relationship between ICANN and the US
government and that the former would become a new type of international
organisation. However, while the new MoU thinned the umbilical cord
between ICANN and the US government, it maintained the possibility of the
eventual internationalisation of ICANNs status.
8
Introduction
The second event of 2006 was the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
in Athens. It was the first such forum and, in many respects, it was an
experiment in multilateral diplomacy.
The IGF was truly a multistakeholder event with participation of states,

business, and civil society. It also had an interesting organisational structure
for its main events and workshops. Journalists moderated the discussions and
the IGF therefore differed from the usual UN-style meeting format. However,
some critics claimed that the IGF was only a talk show without any tangible
results in the form of a final document or plan of action.
The third main development in 2006 was the ITU Plenipotentiary

Conference held in Antalya, Turkey, in November. A new ITU Secretary-
General, Dr Hamadoun Tour, was elected. He announced a stronger focus on
cybersecurity and development assistance. It was also expected that he would
introduce new modalities to the ITUs approach to Internet governance.
In 2007, the ICANN discussion focused on .xxx domains (for adult materials),
re-opening debates on numerous governance points, including whether
ICANN should deal only with technical problems or also with issues having
public policy relevance.7 Interventions by the USA and other governments
pertaining to .xxx domains further raised the question of how national
governments should become involved in ICANN deliberations. At the second
IGF, held in November in Rio de Janeiro, the main development was adding
critical Internet resources (names and numbers) to the IGF agenda.
The major development of 2008, which continued to influence Internet
governance as well as other policy spheres, was the election of Barack Obama
as US President. During his presidential election campaign, President Obama
used the Internet and Web 2.0 tools intensively. Some even argue that this
was one of the reasons for his success. His advisors include many people
from the Internet industry, including the CEO of Google. In addition to
his techno-awareness, President Obama supports multilateralism which is
likely to influence discussions on the internationalisation of ICANN and the
development of the Internet governance regime.
In 2008, network neutrality8 emerged as one of the most important Internet

governance issues. It was mainly discussed in the USA between two main
opposing blocks. It even featured in the US presidential campaign, supported
9
Internet Governance
by President Obama. Network neutrality is mainly supported by the socalled

Internet industry including companies such as Google, Yahoo!, and Facebook.
A change in the architecture of the Internet
triggered by a breach in network neutrality might See Section 2 for further
endanger their business. On the other side sit discussion on network
telecommunication companies, such as Verizon neutrality
and AT&T, Internet service providers (ISPs),
and the multimedia industry. For different
reasons, these industries would like to see some sort of differentiation in
packets travelling on the Internet.
Another major development was the fast growth of Facebook and social
networking. When it comes to Internet governance, the increased use of
Web 2.0 tools opened up the issue of privacy and data protection on Facebook
and similar services.
The first part of 2009 saw the Washington Belt trying to figure out the
implications and future directions of President Obamas Internet-related
policy. His appointments to key Internet-related positions did not bring any
major surprises. They followed his support for an open Internet. His team
also pushed for the implementation of the principle of network neutrality in
accordance with promises made during his election campaign.
The highlight of 2009 was the conclusion of the Affirmation of Commitments

between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce, which was to make
ICANN a more independent organisation. While this move solved one
problem in Internet governance the US supervisory role of ICANN it
opened many new issues, such as the international position of ICANN, and
the supervision of ICANNs activities. The Affirmation of Commitments
provided guidelines, but left many issues to be addressed in the
forthcoming years.
In November 2009, the fourth IGF was held in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt. The
main theme was the IGFs future in view of the 2010 review of its mandate.
In their submissions, stakeholders took a wide range of views on the future
of the IGF. While most of them supported its continuation, there were
major differences of opinion as to how the future IGF should be organised.
China and many developing countries argued for the stronger anchoring of
the IGF in the UN system, which would imply a more prominent role for
governments. The USA, most developing countries, the business sector, and
civil society argued for the preservation of the current IGF model.
10
Introduction
The main development in 2010 was the impact of fast-growing social media
on the Internet governance debate, including the protection of privacy of users
of social media platforms such as Facebook. In 2010, the main development
in Internet geo-politics was US Secretary of State Hillary Clintons speech
on freedom of expression on the Internet, in particular in relation to China.9
Google and Chinese authorities conflicted over the restricted access to
Google-search in China. The conflict led to the closing of Googles search
operations in China.
There were two important developments in the ICANN world. First was the
introduction of non-ASCII domain names for Arabic and Chinese. By solving
the problem of domain names in other languages, ICANN reduced the risk of
the disintegration of the Internet DNS. Second was ICANNs approval of the
.xxx domain (adult materials). With this decision ICANN formally crossed
the Rubicon by officially adopting a decision of high relevance for public
policy on the Internet. Previously, ICANN had tried to stay, at least formally,
within the realm of making only technical decisions.
The IGF review process started in 2010 with the UN Commission on Science
and Development adopting the resolution on the continuation of the Forum,
which suggested continuation for the next five years, with only minor changes
in its organisation and structure. In July 2010, the UN Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC) endorsed this resolution. The UN General Assembly
decided in the autumn of 2010 to continue the IGF for the next five years
(20112015).
In 2011, the main general development was the rise of Internet governance
higher on the global politics agenda. The relevance of Internet governance
moved closer to other diplomatic issues such as climate change, migration,
and food security. Another consequence of the growing political relevance of
the Internet is the gradual shift of national coverage of Internet governance
issues from technology (IT, telecoms) to political ministries (diplomacy, prime
ministerial cabinets). In addition, the main global media (e.g. The Economist,
IHT, Al Jazeera, the BBC) were now following Internet governance
developments more closely than ever before.
Internet governance was affected by the Arab Spring. Although there are very
different views on the impact of the Internet on the Arab Spring phenomenon
(ranging from minimal to key), one outcome is certain: social media is now
perceived as a decisive tool in modern political life. In various ways, the
11
Internet Governance
Internet and its governance popped up on political radars worldwide

this year.
On 27 January, Egyptian authorities cut access to the Internet in a vain hope

to stop political protests. This was the first example of a complete countrywide
Internet blackout ordered by the government. Previously, even in the case of
military conflicts (former Yugoslavia, Iraq), Internet communication had never
been completely severed.
Hillary Clintons initiative on freedom of expression on the Internet, initiated

by her speech in February 2010, was accelerated in 2011. There were two
major conferences on this subject: the Vienna Conference on Human Rights
and the Internet, and The Hague Conference on Internet and Freedom.
In 2011, ICANN continued its soul searching with the following main
developments:
P Implementation of management reform.
P Final policy preparations for the introduction of new generic top-level
domains (gTLDs).
P The resignation of its CEO and the search for a replacement.
2011 was also marked by the avalanche of Internet governance principles

which were proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD), the Council of Europe, the EU, Brazil, and
other players. The numerous convergences of these principles could be the
starting position of a future preamble of a global Internet declaration or
similar document that could serve as the framework for Internet governance
development.
Two major events marked the 2012 agenda with important consequences
for the years to come: the ICANN leadership change and the revision of the
ITUs International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs).
ICANN went through significant developments in 2012 with the

introduction of new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs). Despite some
problems with the registration process (software glitches, controversies over
the policy process), over 1900 applications for new gTLDs were received and
evaluated. Moreover, the new CEO, Fadi Chehad brought a fresh approach
to the steering of the ICANN multistakeholder policy processes. In his speech
to civil society at ICANN 45, he outlined some promising improvements,
12
Introduction
including development of responsible multistakeholderism, frank recognition

of problems, active listening, empathetic guidance, search for compromise, etc.
The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT)

converged in Dubai in December 2012 to amend the ITRs for the first time
since 1988; it stirred debate on the impact of a new regulation on the future of
Internet. At the end of an exhausting two-week conference, the negotiations
ended in a stalemate: the participants failed to reach a consensus on the
amended text, leaving the debate open for upcoming meetings. The main
contentious point was a non-binding resolution on fostering the role of the
ITU in Internet governance, which polarised participating states into two
blocks: western countries favoured the current multistakeholder model while
supporters of the resolution, including states like China, Russia, and Arab
countries, leaned towards an intergovernmental model.
Other notable developments registered in the intellectual property rights area,

where Internet users mobilisation and protests managed to block national
(Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the USA) and international (Anti-
Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)) regulations that would have
affected users legitimate rights through their implementation
The main development in global digital politics was the Snowden revelations
on the various surveillance programmes run by the US National Security
Agency (NSA) and other agencies. The Snowden revelations made the global
public interested in how the Internet is governed. The main focus was on the
question of data protection and rights of privacy.
The question of protection of privacy was addressed by many leaders during

the UN General Assembly. The UNGA resolution initiated a new policy
process on online privacy. The issue will be further discussed in 2014 at the
UN Human Rights Council.
In October 2013, Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff and ICANNs president

Fadi Chehadi initiated the NETmundial process. Internet governance came
into focus at numerous academic conferences and research activities of think-
tanks worldwide.
13
Internet Governance
Prefixes: e- / virtual / cyber / digital
The prefixes e- / virtual / cyber / digital / net are used to describe various ICT/Internet
developments. They are used interchangeably. Each prefix describes the Internet
phenomenon.
Yet, we tend to use e- for commerce, cyber for crime and security, digital for
development divides, and virtual for currencies, such as Bitcoin. Usage patterns have
started to emerge. While in our everyday language, the choice of prefixes e- / virtual
/ cyber / digital / net is casual, in Internet politics the use of prefixes has started to
attract more meaning and relevance.
Lets have a quick look at the etymology of these terms and the way they are used in
Internet politics.
The etymology of cyber goes back to the Ancient Greek meaning of governing.
Cyber came to our time via Norbert Weiners book Cybernetics, dealing with
information-driven governance. In 1984, William Gibson coined the word cyberspace
in the science-fiction novel Neuromancer. The growth in the use of the prefix cyber
followed the growth of the Internet. In the late 1990s almost anything related to the
Internet was cyber: cybercommunity, cyberlaw, cybersex, cybercrime, cyberculture,
cyber If you named anything on the Internet and you had cyber. In the early
2000s, cyber gradually disappeared from wider use, only remaining alive in security
terminology.
Cyber was used to name the 2001 Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention. It is still
the only international treaty in the field of Internet security. Today there is the USAs
Cyberspace Strategy, the ITUs Global Cybersecurity Agenda; NATOs Cyber defense
policy, Estonias Cyber Defence Center of Excellence ...).
Cyberpunk author and Wired columnist Bruce Sterling had this to say:
I think I know why the military calls it cyber its because the metaphor
of defending a battlespace made of cyberspace makes it easier for
certain contractors to get Pentagon grants. If you call cyberspace by the
alternate paradigm of networks, wires, tubes and cables then the NSA has
already owned that for fifty years and the armed services cant get a word
in.10
E is the abbreviation for electronic. It got its first and most important use through
e-commerce, as a description of the early commercialisation of the Internet. In the
EUs Lisbon Agenda (2000), e- was the most frequently used prefix. E- was also the
main prefix in the WSIS declarations (Geneva 2003; Tunis 2005). The WSIS follow-
up implementation is centred on action lines including e-government,e-business,
e-learning, e-health, e-employment, e-agriculture, and e-science. Nonetheless, e- is
not as present as it used to be. Even the EU has abandoned e- recently, trying, most
likely, to distance itself from the failure of the its Lisbon Agenda.
Continued over >
14
Introduction
Prefixes: e- / virtual / cyber / digital continued
Today, the EU has a Digital Agenda for Europe.11 Digital refers to 1 and 0 two
digits which are the basis of whole Internet world. Ultimately, all software and
programmes start with them. In the past, digital was used mainly in development
circles to represent the digital divide. During the last few years, digital has started
conquering Internet linguistic space. It is likely to remain the main Internet prefix.
J-C Juncker, President-elect of the European Commission used the digital prefix
10 times in his speech at the European Parliament, presenting his policy plan for the
next five years. In addition to the EU, Great Britain now has has digital diplomacy.
Virtual relates to the intangible nature of the Internet. Virtual introduces the ambiguity
of being both intangible and, potentially, non-existent. Virtual reality could be both an
intangible reality, (something that cannot be touched) and a reality that does not exist
(a false reality). Academics and Internet pioneers used virtual to highlight the novelty
of the Internet, and the emergence of a brave new world. Virtual, because of its
ambigious meaning, rarely appears in policy language and international documents.
Today, there is truce in the war for prefix dominance.
Each prefix carves its own domain, without a catch-all domination which, for
example, cyber had in the late 1990s. Today, cyber preserves its dominance in security
matters. E- is still the preferred prefix for business. Digital has evolved
from development issue use to wider use by the government sector. Virtual has
been virtually abandoned.
The Internet Governance Cognitive Toolkit

Profound truths are recognised by the fact that the opposite
is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where
opposites are obviously absurd.
Niels Bohr, Atomic Physicist (18851962)
The Internet Governance Cognitive Toolkit is a set of tools for developing

and understanding policy argumentation. The core of the toolkit is a reference
framework which includes perceptions of cause-and-effect relationships,
modes of reasoning, values, terminology, and jargon. This reference framework
is highly relevant in political life. It shapes how particular issues are framed
and what actions are taken.
In many cases, the common reference framework is influenced by the specific

professional culture (the patterns of knowledge and behaviour shared by
members of the same profession). The existence of such a framework usually
15
Internet Governance
helps in facilitating better communication and understanding. It can also

be used to protect professional turf and prevent outside influence. To quote
American linguist, Jeffrey Mirel: All professional language is turf language. 12
The Internet governance regime is complex as it involves many issues, actors,

mechanisms, procedures, and instruments. Figure 1, inspired by Dutch artist
MC Escher, demonstrates some of the paradoxical perspectives associated
with Internet governance.
The toolkit reflects the nature of Internet governance, as a so-called wicked

policy area, characterised by the difficulty encountered in assigning causation
for policy development to one specific reason. In many cases, every problem
is a symptom of another problem, sometimes creating vicious circles. Certain
cognitive approaches, such as linear, mono-causal, and either/or thinking, have
a very limited utility in the field of Internet governance. Internet governance is
too complex to be strapped inside a corset of coherence, non-contradiction, and
consistency. Flexibility, and being open and prepared for the unexpected, might
be the better part of Internet.13
Like the Internet governance process, the toolkit is also in flux. Approaches,
patterns, and analogies emerge and disappear depending on their current
relevance in the policy process. They support specific policy narratives in the
Internet governance debate.
Figure 1
16
Introduction
Approaches and patterns
A number of approaches and patterns have gradually emerged, representing

points where differences in negotiation positions as well as in professional
and national cultures can be identified. Identifying common approaches
and patterns may reduce the complexity of negotiations and help to create a
common reference framework.
Narrow vs broad approach

The narrow approach focuses on the Internet infrastructure (DNS, IP
numbers, and root servers) and on ICANNs position as the key actor in this
field. According to the broad approach, Internet governance negotiations
should go beyond infrastructural issues and address other legal, economic,
developmental, and sociocultural issues. This latter approach is adopted in
the WGIG report and the WSIS concluding document. It is also used as the
underlying principle of IGF architecture.
Technical and policy coherence

A significant challenge facing the Internet governance process has been the
integration of technical and policy aspects, as it is difficult to draw a clear
distinction between the two. Technical solutions are not neutral. Ultimately,
each technical solution/option promotes certain interests, empowers certain
groups, and, to a certain extent, impacts social, political, and economic life.
In the case of the Internet, for a long time both the technical and the policy
aspects were governed by just one social group the early Internet community.
With the growth of the Internet and the emergence of new Internet governance
actors mainly the business sector and governments it was difficult for the
Internet community to maintain an integrated coverage of technical and policy
issues under one roof. Subsequent reforms, including the creation of ICANN,
have tried to re-establish coherence between technical and policy aspects. This
issue remains open, and as expected, has shown to be one of the controversial
topics in the debate on the future of Internet governance.
Old-real vs new-cyber approach

There are two approaches to almost every Internet governance issue (Figure
2). The old-real approach argues that the Internet has not introduced
anything new to the field of governance. It is just another new device, from
the governance perspective, no different from its predecessors: the telegraph,
the telephone, and the radio.
17
Internet Governance
For example, in legal discussions, Figure 2

this approach argues that
existing laws can be applied to
the Internet with only minor
adjustments. In the economic
field, this approach argues
that there is no difference
between regular commerce and
e-commerce. Consequently
there is no need for special legal
treatment of e-commerce.
The new-cyber approach

argues that the Internet is
a fundamentally different
communication system from all previous ones. The main premise of the
cyber approach is that the Internet has managed to de-link our social and
political reality from the (geographically separated) world of sovereign states.
Cyberspace is different from real space and it requires a different form of
governance. In the legal field, the cyber school of thought argues that existing
laws on jurisdiction, cybercrime, and contracts cannot be applied to the
Internet and that new laws must be created. Increasingly, the old-real approach
is becoming more prominent in both regulatory work and
policy field.
Decentralised vs centralised structure of Internet governance

According to the decentralised view, the Internet governance structure
should reflect the very nature of the Internet: a network of networks. This
view underlines that the Internet is so complex it cannot be placed under a
single governance umbrella, such as an international organisation, and that
decentralised governance is one of the major factors allowing fast Internet
growth. This view is mainly supported by the Internets technical community
and developed countries.
The centralised approach, on the other hand, is partly based on the practical
difficulty of countries with limited human and financial resources to follow
Internet governance discussions in a highly decentralised and multi-
institutional setting. Such countries find it difficult to attend meetings in the
main diplomatic centres (Geneva, New York), let alone to follow the activities
of other institutions, such as ICANN, W3C (World Wide Web Consortium),
and IETF. These mainly developing countries argue for a one-stop shop,
preferably within the framework of an international organisation.
18
Introduction
Protection of public interests on the Internet

One of the main strengths of the Internet is its public nature, which has enabled
its rapid growth and also fosters creativity and inclusiveness. How to protect
the public nature of the Internet will remain one of the core issues of the
Internet governance debate. This problem is especially complicated given that
a substantial part of the core Internet infrastructure from transcontinental
backbones to local area networks is privately owned. Whether or not private
owners can be requested to manage this property in the public interest and
which parts of the Internet can be considered a global public good are some
of the difficult questions that need to be
See Section 2 for further
addressed. The question of the public nature of discussion on network
the Internet has been re-opened through the neutrality
debate on network neutrality.
Geography and the Internet

One of the early assumptions regarding the Internet was that it overcame
national borders and eroded the principle of sovereignty. With Internet
communication easily transcending national borders and user anonymity
embedded in the very design of the Internet, it seemed to many, to quote the
famous Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace,5 that governments had
no moral right to rule us [users] nor any methods of enforcement we have
true reason to fear. Technological developments of the recent past, however,
including more sophisticated geo-location software, increasingly challenge the
view of the end of geography in the Internet era.
Today, it is still difficult to identify exactly who is behind the screen but it
is fairly straightforward to identify their geographical location. The more
the Internet is anchored in geography, the less unique its governance is. For
example, with the possibility of geographically locating Internet users and
transactions, the complex question of jurisdiction on the Internet can be
solved through existing laws.
Policy uncertainty
Internet technology develops very quickly. New services are introduced almost
on daily basis. This creates additional difficulties in organising the Internet
governance debate. For example, in November 2005, when the current
Internet governance arrangement was negotiated at WSIS in Tunisia,14
Twitter did not exist. Today, Twitter has triggered some of the core Internet
governance issues, such as protection of privacy, freedom of expression, and
protection of intellectual property.
19
Internet Governance
Another example of fast technology changes is the relevance of spam. Back

in 2005, it was one of the key governance issues. Today, thanks to highly
sophisticated technological filters, spam is a less prominent IG issue.
Policy balancing acts

Balance is probably the most appropriate visualisation of Internet
governance and policy debates. On many Internet governance issues,
balance has to be established between various interests and approaches.
Establishing this balance is very often the basis for compromise. Areas of
policy balancing include:
P Freedom of expression vs protection of public order: the well-known
debate between Article 19 (freedom of expression) and Article 27
(protection of public order) of the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights has been extended to the Internet. It is very often discussed in the
context of content control and censorship on the Internet.
P Cybersecurity vs privacy: like security in See Section 2 for
real life, cybersecurity may endanger some further discussion on
human rights such as the right to privacy. cybersecurity
The balance between cybersecurity and
privacy is in constant flux, depending on the
overall global political situation. After 09/11 with the securitisation of the
global agenda, the balance shifted towards cybersecurity.
P Intellectual property protection of authors
See Section 3 for
rights vs fair use of materials: another real
further discussion on
law dilemma which has taken on a new
intellectual property
perspective in the online world.
Many criticise these balancing pairs, considering them false dilemmas. For
example, there are strong arguments that more cybersecurity does not necessarily
mean less privacy. There are approaches towards enhancing both cybersecurity and
privacy. While these views are strongly held, the reality of Internet governance
policy is that it is shaped by the aforementioned binary policy options.
Dont re-invent the wheel

Any initiative in the field of Internet governance should start from existing
regulations, which can be divided into three broad groups:
P those invented for the Internet (e.g. ICANN);
P those that require considerable adjustment in order to address Internet-
related issues (e.g. trademark protection, e-taxation); and
P those that can be applied to the Internet without significant adjustments
(e.g. protection of freedom of expression).
20
Introduction
The use of existing rules would significantly increase legal stability and reduce
the complexity of the development of the Internet governance regime.
If it aint broke, dont fix it

Internet governance must maintain the current functionality and robustness of
the Internet and yet remain flexible enough to adopt changes leading towards
increased functionality and higher legitimacy. General consensus recognises
that the stability and functionality of the Internet should be one of the guiding
principles of Internet governance.
The stability of the Internet should be preserved through the early Internet
approach of running code, which involves the gradual introduction of well-
tested changes in the technical infrastructure. However, some actors are
concerned that the use of the slogan if it aint broke, dont fix it will provide
blanket immunity from any changes in the current Internet governance,
including changes not necessarily related to technical infrastructure. One
solution is to use this principle as a criterion for the evaluation of specific
Internet-governance-related decisions (e.g. the introduction of new protocols
and changes in decision-making mechanisms).
Promotion of a holistic approach and prioritisation

A holistic approach should facilitate addressing not only the technical
but also the legal, social, economic, and developmental aspects of Internet
development. This Figure 3
approach should also take
into consideration the
increasing convergence
of digital technology,
including the migration of
telecommunication services
towards ISPs.
While maintaining a
holistic approach to Internet
governance negotiations,
stakeholders should identify
priority issues depending
on their particular interests.
Neither developing nor
developed countries are
homogenous groups.
21
Internet Governance
Among developing countries there are considerable differences in priorities,

level of development, and IT-readiness (e g. between ICT-advanced countries,
such as India, China, and Brazil, and some least-developed countries in sub-
Saharan Africa).
A holistic approach and prioritisation of the Internet governance agenda

should help stakeholders from both developed and developing countries to
focus on a particular set of issues. This should lead towards more substantive
and possibly less politicised negotiations. Stakeholders would group around
issues rather than around the traditional highly politicised division-lines (e.g.
developeddeveloping countries, governmentscivil society).
The principle of technological neutrality

According to the principle of technological neutrality, policy should not
be designed for specific technological or technical devices. For example,
regulations for the protection of privacy should specify what should be
protected (e g. personal data, health records), not how it should be protected
(e g. access to databases, crypto-protection). The use of the principle of
technological neutrality makes a few privacy and data protection
instruments, such as the OECD Guidelines from 1980, as relevant
today as they were back then.
Technological neutrality provides many governance advantages. It

ensures the continuing relevance of governance regardless of future
technological developments and likely convergence of the main technologies
(telecommunication, media, the Internet, etc.). Technological neutrality is
different from network neutrality: the former
indicates that particular policy is independent See Section 2 for further
of the technology which it regulates; the latter discussion on network
focuses mainly on the neutrality of Internet neutrality
traffic.
Make tacit technological solutions explicit policy principles

It is a view commonly held within the Internet community that certain social
values, such as free communication, are facilitated by the way in which the
Internet is technologically designed. For instance, the principle of network
neutrality, according to which the network should merely transmit data between
two endpoints rather than introduce intermediaries, is often acclaimed as a
guarantee of free speech on the Internet. This view could lead to the erroneous
conclusion that technological solutions are sufficient for promoting and
protecting social values. The latest developments in the Internet, such as the
22
Introduction
use of firewall technologies for restricting the flow of information, prove that
technology can be used in many, seemingly contradictory, ways. Whenever
possible, principles such as free communication should be clearly stated at policy
level, not tacitly presumed at technical level. Technological solutions should
strengthen policy principles, but should not be the only way to promote them.
Avoid the risk of running society through programmers code

One key aspect of the relationship between technology and policy was
identified by Lawrence Lessig, who observed that with its growing reliance
on the Internet, modern society may end up being regulated by software code
instead of legal rules. Ultimately, some legislative functions of parliament and
government could de facto be taken over by computer companies and software
developers. Through a combination of software and technical solutions, they
would be able to influence life in increasingly Internet-based societies. Should
the running of society through code instead of laws ever happen, it would
substantially challenge the very basis of the political and legal organisation of
modern society.
Analogies
Though analogy is often misleading,
it is the least misleading thing we have.
Samuel Butler, British Poet (18351902)
Analogy helps us to understand new developments by referring to what is

already known. Drawing parallels between past and current examples, despite
its risks, is one of the key cognitive processes in law and politics. Most legal
cases concerning the Internet are solved through analogies, especially in
the Anglo-Saxon precedent legal system. The use of analogies in Internet
governance has a few important limitations.
First, Internet is a broad term, which encompasses a variety of services,

including e-mail (analogous to telephony), web services (analogous to
broadcasting services television), and databases (analogous to libraries).
An analogy to any particular aspect of the Internet may over-simplify the
understanding of the Internet.
Second, with the increasing convergence of different telecommunication

and media services, the traditional differences between the various services
23
Internet Governance
are blurring. For example, with the introduction of VoIP, it is increasingly

difficult to make a clear distinction between the Internet and telephony.
In spite of these limiting factors, analogies are still powerful; they are still
the main cognitive tool for solving legal cases and developing an Internet
governance regime.
Internet telephony
Similarities: In the early Internet days, this analogy was influenced by the fact
that the telephone was used for dial-up access to the Internet. In addition, a
functional analogy holds between the telephone and the Internet (e-mail and
chat), both being means for direct and personal communication.
Differences: The Internet uses packets instead of circuits (the telephone).

Unlike telephony, the Internet cannot guarantee services; it can only guarantee
a best effort. The analogy highlights only one aspect of the Internet:
communication via e-mail or chat. Other major Internet applications, such
as the World Wide Web, interactive services, etc., do not share common
elements with telephony.
Used by: This analogy is used by those who oppose the regulation of Internet
content (mainly in the USA). If the Internet were analogous to the telephone,
the content of Internet communication cannot be legally controlled, unlike for
example broadcasting. It is also used by those who argue that the Internet
should be governed like other communication systems (e.g. telephony, post), by
national authorities with a coordinating role of international organisations, such
as the ITU. According to this analogy, the Internet DNS should be organised
and managed like the telephony numbering system.15
A new twist in the complex analogy was created by VoIP (e.g. Skype) which
performs the function of the telephone while using Internet protocols. This
dichotomy triggered a policy controversy at the 2012 World Conference on
International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. The current view that
VoIP is the Internet service is challenged by those who argue that it should
be regulated like telephone service on both national and international level,
including a more prominent role for the ITU.
Internet mail/post
Similarities: Here is an analogy in function, namely the delivery of messages.
The name itself, e-mail, highlights this similarity.
24
Introduction
The postal system and ICANN
Paul Twomy, former CEO of ICANN, used the following analogy between the postal
system and ICANNs function: If you think of the Internet as a post office or a postal
system, domain name and IP addressing are essentially ensuring that the addresses
on the front of an envelope work. They are not about what you put inside the envelope,
who sends the envelope, whos allowed to read the envelope, how long it takes for
the envelope to get there, what is the price of the envelope. None of those issues are
important for ICANNs functions. The function is focusing on just ensuring that the
address works.
Differences: This analogy covers only one Internet service: e-mail. Moreover,
the postal service has a much more elaborate intermediary structure between
the sender and the recipient than the e-mail system, where the active
intermediary function is performed by ISPs or an e-mail service provider like
Yahoo! or Hotmail.
Used by: The Universal Postal Convention draws this analogy between mail
and e-mail: Electronic mail is a postal service which uses telecommunications
for transmitting. This analogy can have consequences concerning the delivery
of official documents. For instance, receiving a court decision via e-mail would
be considered an official delivery.
The families of US soldiers who died in Iraq have also attempted to make use
of the analogy between mail (letters) and e-mail in order to gain access to
their loved ones private e-mail and blogs, arguing that they should be allowed
to inherit e-mail and blogs as they would letters and diaries. ISPs have found
it difficult to deal with this highly emotional problem. Instead of going along
with the analogy between letters and e-mail, most ISPs have denied access
based on the privacy agreement they had signed with their users.
Internet television
Similarities: The initial analogy was related to the physical similarity between
computers and television screens. A more sophisticated analogy draws on the
use of both media web and TV for broadcasting.
Differences: The Internet is a broader medium than television. Aside from

the similarity between a computer screen and a TV screen, there are major
structural differences between them. Television is a one-to-many medium for
25
Internet Governance
broadcasting to viewers, while the Internet facilitates many different types of

communication (one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many).
Used by: This analogy is used by those who want to introduce stricter content
control to the Internet. In their view, due to its power as a mass media
tool similar to television, the Internet should be strictly controlled. The US
government attempted to use this analogy in the seminal Reno vs ACLU
case. This case was prompted by the Communication Decency Act passed by
Congress, which stipulates strict content control in order to prevent children
from being exposed to pornographic materials via the Internet. The court
refused to recognise the television analogy.
Internet library
Similarities: The Internet is sometimes seen as a vast repository of information
and the term library is often used to describe it: for example, huge digital
library, cyberlibrary, Alexandrian Library of the twenty-first century, etc.
Differences: The storage of information and data is only one aspect of the
Internet, and there are considerable differences between libraries and the
Internet:
P Traditional libraries aim to serve individuals living in a particular place
(city, country, etc.), whereas the Internet is global.
P Books, articles, and journals are published using procedures to ensure
quality (editors). The Internet does not always have editors.
P Libraries are organised according to specific classification schemes,
allowing users to locate the books in their collections. There is no such
classification scheme for information on the Internet.
P Apart from keyword descriptions, the contents of a library (text in books
and articles) are not accessible until the user borrows a particular book or
journal. The content of the Internet is immediately accessible via search
engines.
Used by: This analogy is used by various projects that aim to create a
comprehensive system of information and knowledge on particular issues
(portals, databases, etc.). The library analogy has been used in the context of a
Google book project with the objective of digitalising all printed books.
Internet VCR, photocopier

Similarities: This analogy focuses on the reproduction and dissemination
of content (e.g. texts and books). Computers have simplified reproduction
26
Introduction
through the process of copy and paste. This, in turn, has made the
dissemination of information via the Internet much simpler.
Differences: The computer has a much broader function than the copying of
materials, although copying itself is much simpler on the Internet than with a
VCR or photocopier.
Used by: This analogy was used in the context of the US Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA), which penalises institutions that contribute to
the infringement of copyright (developing software for breaking copyright
protection, etc.). The counterargument in such cases was that software
developers, like VCR and photocopier manufacturers, cannot predict whether
their products will be used illegally.
This analogy was used in cases against the developers of Napster-style software
for peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing of files, such as Grokster and StreamCast.
Internet highway
Similarities: What the highway is for transportation in the real world, the
Internet is for communication in a virtual space.
Differences: Aside from the transportation aspect of the Internet, there are
no other similarities between the Internet and highways. The Internet moves
intangible materials (data), while highways facilitate the transportation of
goods and people.
Highways and the Internet
Hamadoun Tour, the ITU Secretary General, used an analogy between highways
and the Internet by relating highways to telecommunications and the Internet
traffic to trucks or cars: I was giving a simple example, comparing Internet and
telecommunications to trucks or cars and highways. It is not because you own
the highways that you are going to own all the trucks or cars running on them,
and certainly not the goods that they are transporting, or vice versa. Its a simple
analogy. But in order to run your traffic smoothly, you need to know, when you are
building your roads, the weight, the height and the speed of the trucks, so that you
build the bridges accordingly. Otherwise, the system will not flow. For me, thats
the relationship between the Internet and the telecommunication world. They are
condemned to work together.16
27
Internet Governance
Used by: The highway analogy was used extensively in the mid-1990s, after
Al Gore allegedly coined the term information superhighway. The term
highway was also used by the German government in order to justify the
introduction of a stricter Internet content control law in June 1997:
Its a liberal law that has nothing to do with censorship but clearly sets the
conditions for what a provider can and cannot do. The Internet is a means
of transporting and distributing knowledge just as with highways, there
need to be guidelines for both kinds of traffic.17
Internet high seas

Similarities: Initially, this analogy was driven by the fact that like the high
seas, the Internet seems to be beyond any national jurisdiction.
Differences: Nowadays, it is clear that most of the Internet lies within some
national jurisdiction. The technical infrastructure through which Internet
traffic is channelled is owned by private and state companies, typically
telecommunication operators. The closest analogy to the Internet in the
maritime field would be a shipping companys transport containers.
When it comes to legal instruments, the Convention on the Law of the Sea
regulates activities beyond national jurisdiction, such as on the high seas. There
is nothing analogous in the field of Internet telecommunication.
Used by: This analogy is used by those who argue for the international
regulation of the Internet. Concretely speaking, this analogy suggests the
use of the old Roman law concept of res communis omnium (i.e., space as a
common heritage for humankind to be regulated and garnered by all nations)
on the Internet as it is used for regulating the high sea.
Classification of Internet governance issues
Internet governance is a complex new field requiring an initial conceptual

mapping and classification. Its complexity is related to its multidisciplinary
nature, encompassing a variety of aspects, including technology,
socioeconomics, development, law, and politics.
The practical need for classification was clearly demonstrated during the
WSIS process. In the first phase, during the lead-up to the Geneva summit
(2003), many players, including nation states, had difficulty grasping the
complexity of Internet governance. A conceptual mapping, provided by
28
Introduction
various academic inputs and the WGIG report, contributed towards more
efficient negotiations within the context of the WSIS process. The WGIG
report (2004) identified four main areas:
P Issues related to infrastructure and the management of critical Internet
resources.
P Issues related to the use of the Internet, including spam, network security,
and cybercrime.
P Issues relevant to the Internet but that have an impact much wider than
the Internet and for which existing organisations are responsible, such as
intellectual property rights (IPR) or international trade.
P Issues related to the developmental aspects of Internet governance, in
particular capacity building in developing countries.
The agenda for the first IGF held in Athens (2006) was built around the
following thematic areas: access, security, diversity, and openness. At the
second IGF in Rio de Janeiro (2007), a fifth thematic area was added to the
agenda: managing critical Internet resources. These five thematic areas have
influenced the agendas of all subsequent IGF meetings.
Although the classification changes, Internet governance addresses more

or less the same set of 4050 specific issues, with the relevance of particular
issues changing. For example, while spam featured prominently in the WGIG
classification in 2004, its policy relevance diminished at the IGF meetings,
Figure 4
29
Internet Governance
where it became one of the less prominent themes within the Security
thematic area. Diplos classification of Internet governance groups the main
4050 issues into the following five baskets:
P Infrastructure and standardisation
P Legal
P Economic
P Development
P Sociocultural
This classification (Figure 4) reflects both the aforementioned (WGIG, IGF)

policy approaches as well as academic research in this field. The classification
was developed in 1997 with constant adjustment based on feedback from
students (an alumni of 1542 students as of 2013), research results, and insights
from the policy process.18
30
Introduction
Endnotes
1
The UN General Assembly Resolution 56/183 (21 December 2001) endorsed the holding
of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in two phases. The first phase
took place in Geneva from 10 to 12 December 2003 and the second phase took place
in Tunis, from 16 to 18 November 2005. The objective of the first phase was to develop
and foster a clear statement of political will and to take concrete steps to establish the
foundations for an Information Society for all, reflecting all the different interests at stake.
More than 19 000 participants from 174 countries attended the summit and related events.
Source: http://www.itu.int/wsis/basic/about.html [accessed 21 January 2014].
2
The WGIG definition follows the pattern of frequently used definitions in the regime
theory. The founder of regime theory, Stephen D. Krasner, notes that: Regimes can
be defined as sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making
procedures around which actors expectations converge in a given area of international
relations. Principles are beliefs of fact, causation, and rectitude. Norms are standards of
behaviour defined in terms of rights and obligations. Rules are specific prescriptions or
proscriptions for action. Decision-making procedures are prevailing practices for making
and implementing collective choice. Krasner S (1983) Introduction, in International
Regimes. Krasner SD (ed.), Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA.
3
Shannon V (2006) Whats in an i? International Herald Tribune, 3 December 2006.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/technology/03iht-btitu.3755510.html
[accessed 21 January 2014].
4
The technological confusion was highlighted by the way the term governance was used by
some international organisations. For example, the term good governance has been used
by the World Bank to promote the reform of states by introducing more transparency,
reducing corruption, and increasing the efficiency of administration. In this context, the
term governance is directly related to core government functions.
5
Barlow JP (1996) A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Available at: https://
projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html [accessed 21 January 2014].
6
For the evolution of the use of the word Internet in the preparation for the WSIS Summit:
DiploFoundation (2003) The Emerging Language of ICT Diplomacy Key Words.
Available at http://archive1.diplomacy.edu/IS/Language/html/words.htm
[accessed 3 August 2014].

7
In June 2010, ICANN approved the .xxx top level domain name for adult material.

8
For more on network neutrality, see our explanatory video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-uMbZFfJVU [accessed 12 February 2014].

9
Clinton H (2010) Remarks on Internet freedom. Available at
http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2010/01/135519.htm
[accessed 21 January 2014].
10
Newitz A (2013) The bizarre evolution of the word cyber. Available at
http://io9.com/today-cyber-means-war-but-back-in-the-1990s-it-mean-1325671487
11
European Commission (no date) Digital Agenda for Europe. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/ [accessed 3 August 2014].
31
Internet Governance
Cited in Helfand D (2001) Edpseak is in a class by itself. Los Angeles Times, 16 August.
12
Available at http://articles.latimes.com/2001/aug/16/news/mn-34814
[accessed 13 February 2014].
This section could not have been completed without discussion with Aldo Matteucci,
13
Diplos senior fellow, whose contrarian views on modern governance issues are a constant
reality check in Diplos teaching and research activities.
The WSIS process started with the first preparatory meeting held in July 2002 in Geneva.
14
The first summit was held in Geneva (December, 2003) and the second summit in Tunisia
(November, 2005).
Volker Kitz provides an argument for the analogy between administration of telephony
15
systems and Internet names and numbers. Kitz V (2004) ICANN may be the only game
in town, but Marina del Rey isnt the only town on Earth: Some thoughts on the so-called
uniqueness of the Internet. Available at http://studentorgs.law.smu.edu/Science-and-
Technology-Law-Review/Articles/Fall-2005/Kitz.aspx [accessed 21 January 2014].
Excerpts from the Secretary Generals speech delivered at the ICANN meeting in Cairo
16
(6 November 2008). Available at https://cai.icann.org/files/meetings/cairo2008/toure-

speech-06nov08.txt [accessed 21 January 2014].
Quoted in Mock K, Armony L (1998) Hate on the Internet. Available at

17
http://archive.is/M70XS [accessed 13 February 2014].
The term basket was introduced into diplomatic practice during the Organization for
18
Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) negotiations.
32
Section 2
The infrastructure
and standardisation
basket
Internet Governance
34
The infrastructure and standardisation basket
The infrastructure and

standardisation basket
T
he infrastructure and standardisation basket includes the basic, mainly
technical, issues related to the running of the Internet. The main
criterion for putting an issue in this basket is its relevance to the basic
functionality of the Internet. There are two groups of issues here.
The first group includes the essential issues without which the Internet and
the World Wide Web (www) could not exist.1 These issues are grouped into
the following three layers:
Figure 5
35
Internet Governance
1 The telecommunications infrastructure, through which all Internet traffic

flows.
2 The Internet technical standards and services, the infrastructure that
makes the Internet work (e.g. TCP/IP: Transmission Control Protocol/
Internet Protocol; DNS: domain name system; SSL: secure sockets layer).
3 The content and applications standards (e.g. HTML: HyperText Markup
Language; XML: eXtensible Markup Language)
The second group consists of issues related to safeguarding the secure and
stable operation of the Internet infrastructure and includes cybersecurity,
encryption, and spam.
The telecommunication infrastructure2
The current situation

Internet data can travel over a diverse range of communication media:
telephone wires, fibre-optic cables, satellites, microwaves, and wireless links.
Even the standard electric grid can be used to relay Internet traffic utilising
power line technology.3
The way in which telecommunication is regulated impacts Internet

governance directly. The telecommunications infrastructure is regulated
at both national and international level by a variety of public and private
organisations. The key international organisations involved in the regulation
of telecommunications include the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU), which developed rules for coordination among national
telecommunication systems, the allocation of the radio spectrum, and the
management of satellite positioning; and the World Trade Organization
(WTO), which played a key role in the liberalisation of telecommunication
markets worldwide.4
The ITU International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs)
The 1988 ITU International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) facilitated the

international liberalisation of pricing and services and allowed a more innovative
use of basic services in the Internet field, such as international leased lines, in the
Internet field. They provided one of the infrastructural bases for the rapid growth of
the Internet in the 1990s. The ITRs were amended in December 2012 during WCIT-12
in Dubai; 89 states mostly developing countries have signed the amended ITRs,
while 55 states, including the USA and many European states, have not.5
36
The roles of the ITU and the WTO are quite different. The ITU sets detailed
voluntary technical standards and telecommunication-specific international
regulations, and provides assistance to developing countries.6 The WTO
provides a framework for general market rules.7
Following liberalisation, the ITUs near monopoly as the principal standards-

setting institution for telecommunications was eroded by other professional
bodies and organisations. At the same time, large telecommunication
companies such as AT&T, Cable and Wireless, France Telecom, Sprint,
and WorldCom were given the opportunity to globally extend their market
coverage. Since most Internet traffic is carried over the telecommunication
infrastructures of such companies, they have an important influence on
Internet developments.
The issues
The local loop last mile

The local loop (or last mile) is the name given to the connection between
ISPs and their individual customers. Problems with local loops are an obstacle
to the more widespread use of the Internet in many, mainly developing
countries. Wireless communication is one possible, low-cost solution to the
local loop problem.8 Apart from increasingly available technological options,
the solution to the problem of the local loop also depends on the liberalisation
of this segment of the telecommunication market.
The liberalisation of telecommunication markets

A considerable number of countries have liberalised their telecommunication
markets with the aim of boosting development of new communication
services by allowing access to existing (state-owned) infrastructure. However,
many developing countries are faced with a hard choice: to liberalise and
make the telecommunication market bigger and more efficient, or to preserve
an important budgetary income from the existing telecommunication
monopolies. This question was discussed at the World Conference on
International Telecommunications 2012 (WCIT-12) with some developing
countries raising the question of redistribution of income from Internet
communication services.9
The establishment of technical infrastructure standards

Technical standards are increasingly being set by private and professional
institutions. For example, the WiFi standard, IEEE 802.11b, was developed
by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). The
certification of WiFi-compatible equipment is carried out by the WiFi
37
Internet Governance
Alliance.10 The very function of setting or implementing standards in such a

fast developing market affords these institutions considerable influence.
Who owns the electromagnetic spectrum?

The current regime of spectrum management is based on the assumption that
it is a scarce resource that should be managed by government institutions,
regional initiatives (such as the EUs Radio Spectrum Committee (RSC)
and the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG)), and the ITU. Development
of new technologies that use the spectrum more efficiently than before has
resulted in it being conceived as a less scarce resource in practice. Ultimately,
the volume and limits of the use of the spectrum will depend on technological
developments. This approach argues that current government regulation
should be replaced with an open spectrum, i.e., open access for all.
There are two potential problems with this view. One is practical and related
to the huge investments that telecommunications companies, especially in
Europe, made in acquiring the rights to operate third-generation mobile-
phone networks.11 The other issue is that if the spectrum becomes a free-for-
all, this does not necessarily mean that it will be used by many as a public
good. Rather, it will be utilised by actors that have technical capacities to
utilise free spectrum.
The development of new communication services using radio spectrum,

most notably wireless broadband and mobile communications, has increased
the demand for radio frequencies, urging governments around the world
to find solutions to accommodate an optimal spectrum use. Replacing
conservative analogue broadcasting with digital television allows the freeing
up of an important part of the radio spectrum that can be thus allocated
to other services the so-called digital dividend. The EU has developed a
comprehensive regulatory programme for radio spectrum management,12
while the USA has taken a market-led approach by submitting the frequencies
to auction processes.
Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)

TCP/IP is the main Internet technical standard. It is based on three
principles: packet-switching, end-to-end networking, and robustness. Internet
governance related to TCP/IP has two important aspects:
38
P The introduction of new standards

P The distribution of IP numbers
TCP/IP standards are set by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
Given the core relevance of these protocols to the Internet, they are carefully
guarded by the IETF. Any changes to TCP/IP require extensive prior
discussion and proof that they are an effective solution (i.e., the running code
principle).
IP numbers are unique numeric addresses that all computers connected to the
Internet must have. Two computers connected to the Internet cannot have
the same IP number. This makes IP numbers a potentially scarce resource.
The system for the distribution of IP numbers is hierarchically organised. At
the top is IANA (the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority a subsidiary
of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ICANN),
which distributes blocks of IP numbers to the five regional Internet registries
(RIRs).13 RIRs distribute IP numbers to the local Internet registries (LIRs)
and national Internet registries (RIRs), which in turn distribute IP numbers
to smaller ISPs, companies, and individuals further down the ladder.
Figure 6
Source: Wikimedia Commons
The issues
How to deal with the limitation of IP numbers (the transition to IPv6)

The pool of IP numbers under IPv4 (Internet Protocol, version 4) contains
some four billion numbers which had been fully allocated by IANA
between the five RIRs in February 2011. The depletion of IPv4 numbers
was accelerated with the introduction in recent years of Internet-enabled
devices (such as mobile phones, personal organisers, game consoles, and home
appliances) and the rise of worldwide Internet connectivity. The concern that
IP numbers might run out and eventually inhibit the further development of
the Internet has led the technical community to take three major actions.
39
Internet Governance
P Rationalise the use of the existing pool of IP numbers through the

introduction of Network Address Translation (NAT).
P Address the wasteful address allocation algorithms used by the RIRs by
introducing Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR).
P Introduce a new version of the TCP/IP protocol IPv6 which provides
a much bigger pool of IP numbers (over 340,000,000,000,000,000,000).
Figure 7
The response of the Internet technical community to the problem of a

potential shortage of IP numbers is an example of prompt and proactive
management. While both NAT and CIDR provided a quick fix for the
problem, a proper long-term solution is the transition to IPv6. Although IPv6
was introduced back in 1996, its deployment has been very slow, due to lack of
awareness about the need for transition as well as limited funds for investment
in new equipment in developing countries.
One of the main challenges facing the deployment of IPv6 is the lack of
backward compatibility between IPv6 and IPv4. Networks using IPv6
cannot communicate directly to those, still dominant today, using IPv4.
Since it is very likely that networks using IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist during
the forthcoming period, it is important to ensure that new IPv6-based
networks do not remain islands. A technical solution will involve special
40
tunnelling between the two types of networks, which will cause more complex
routing on the Internet and a few other collateral problems.
Given the complexity of the transition to IPv6, developing countries may

benefit from the delayed start and the possibility of introducing IPv6-based
networks from the beginning. In this process, developing countries will need
technical assistance.14
Apart from the problem of transition, the policy framework for IPv6
distribution will require a proper distribution of IP numbers, demanding
the introduction of open and competitive mechanisms to address the needs
of end-users in the most optimal way. Even with the introduction of IPv6
an artificial scarcity of IP numbers could still arise, if those responsible for
allocating them at local level, such as ISPs, choose to abuse their power
and link such allocation to, for example, the purchase of other services, thus
affecting the availability and price of IP numbers.
Changes in TCP/IP and cybersecurity

Security was not a major issue for the original developers of the Internet, as, at
that time, the Internet consisted of a closed network of research institutions.
With the expansion of the Internet to two billion users worldwide and its
growing importance as a commercial tool, the question of security is high up
on the list of Internet governance issues.
Because the Internet architecture was not designed with security in mind,
incorporating intrinsic security will require substantial changes to the very
basis of the Internet, the TCP/IP. A new protocol (IPv6) provides some
security improvements, but still falls short of a comprehensive solution. Such
protection would require considerable modifications to TCP/IP.15
Technology, standards, and politics
Standardisation could be politics by other means. Technical standards could have

far-reaching economic and social consequences, promoting specific interests
and altering the balance of power between competing businesses and/or national
interests. Standards are essential for the Internet. Through standards and software
design, Internet developers can shape how human rights are used and protected (e.g.
freedom of information, privacy, and data protection).
Efforts to create formal standards bring private technical decisions made by

system builders into the public realm; in this way, standards battles can bring
to light unspoken assumptions and conflicts of interest. The very passion with
41
Internet Governance
which stakeholders contest standards decisions should alert us to the deeper

meaning beneath the nuts and bolts.
Changes in TCP/IP and the problem of limited bandwidth

To facilitate the delivery of multimedia content (e.g. Internet telephony,
or video on demand), it is necessary to provide a quality of service (QoS)
capable of guaranteeing a minimum level of performance. QoS is particularly
important in delay-sensitive applications, such as live event broadcasting, and
is often difficult to achieve due to bandwidth constraints. The introduction
of QoS may require changes in the IP, including a potential challenge for the
principle of network neutrality.
The Domain Name System (DNS)

The DNS handles Internet addresses (such as www.google.com) and converts
them to IP numbers (a simplified scheme of this process is presented in
Figure 8). The DNS consists of root servers, top-level domain (TLD) servers,
and a large number of DNS servers located around the world.16
The DNS includes three types of top-level domains: generic (gTLD), country
code (ccTLD), and sponsored (sTLD). gTLDs include domains that could
be obtained by anyone (.com, .info, .net, and .org). Since 2014 many other
gTLDs have been added like .pub, .( bazaar), .rentals, .ngo, or .
(game). sTLDs are limited to a specific group. For example, the sTLD .aero is
open for registration only for air-transport industry. ccTLDs are designating
specific countries or territories (.uk, .cn, .in).
For each gTLD there is one registry that maintains an address list. For
example, the .com gTLD is managed by VeriSign. The salesman function is
performed by registrars. ICANN provides overall coordination of the DNS
system by concluding agreements and accrediting registries and registrars.
An important part of DNS management is the protection of trademarks and
dispute resolution. The first-come-first-served principle of domain name
allocation used in the early days of the Internet triggered the phenomenon
known as cybersquatting, the practice of
registering domain names that could be resold See Section 3 for
later. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy further discussion on
(UDRP) developed by ICANN and the World intellectual property
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
42
Figure 8
provides mechanisms that have significantly reduced cybersquatting.

Intellectual property is discussed in more detail in the Legal basket.
Another important element in the survey of the current organisation of DNS

governance is the management of ccTLDs. Currently, some country codes
are still managed by a variety of institutions or individuals that received
accreditation in the early days of the Internet, when some governments were
not all that interested in such matters.
The issues
The creation of new generic domain names

Technically, the creation of new TLDs is almost unlimited. However, the
introduction of new gTLDs has been a very slow and debated process.17
After six years of consultations and development of a new policy, ICANN
began implementation of a new gTLD programme in 2012. Under the new
43
Internet Governance
programme, any organisation in the world could apply to run a new gTLD
registry, including in non-Latin language scripts. The main opposition to the
creation of new gTLDs originated from the trademark lobby, concerned about
the protection of their trademarks in the context of the increasing number
of domains and the increase of cybersquatting. Although the debate on the
introduction of new gTLDs continues, the programme is up and running.
Under pressure to introduce new gTLDs, ICANN initiated consultations

to design a new policy in this field which would address the resolution of
competing claims for gTLDs, the risk of cybersquatting, questions of public
morality, and registration fees, among others.
Intellectual property was not the only concern in this process. The most
illustrative situation was the proposal to introduce the .xxx domain for adult
materials.18 Initiated first in 2000 and resubmitted in 2004, the proposal
was rejected by the ICANN Board in March 2007. The main criticism
of this decision was that ICANN made it under pressure from the US
government, which strongly opposed its introduction.19 Such a move by the
US government resulted in a wide range of reactions. Among them were
sceptical voices stating that .xxx wouldnt be attractive to the Internet sex
business because of the risk of being heavily filtered. The issue was revisited in
June 2010 following a new submission; the ICANN Board positively reviewed
the application for the .xxx domain, which was finally approved as an sTLD
in 2011. This decision also re-opened the discussion about ICANNs role in
public policy issues.
Other controversies may continue to arise in relation to gTLDs for cultural

and linguistic communities. In 2003, ICANN introduced a new .cat domain
for the Catalan language the first domain introduced for a language.20
This decision was not opposed by the Spanish government, but there could
be cases where language and cultural communities requesting the same may
have aspirations towards nationhood and this aspect might cause potential
controversy and conflict with existing states.
Protection of geographical indicators appeared to be another hot potato:

ICANN stopped the delegation process for .amazon to Amazon (the
online retailer) after a strong revolt from Latin American countries in its
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Delegation of .wine/.vin
has been strongly contested by Switzerland and France, as well as several
other countries. When ICANN assigned .Africa to the consortium led by
the African Union Commission, this decision was contested by a private
company.21
44
The management of country domains22

The management of ccTLDs involves three important issues. The first
concerns the often politically controversial decision as to exactly which
country codes should be registered when dealing with countries and entities
with unclear or contested international status (e.g. newly independent
countries, resistance movements). One controversial issue was the allocation
of a Palestinian Authority domain name. In justifying its decision to assign
the .ps TLD, IANA reiterated the principle of allocating domain names in
accordance with the ISO 3166 standard for country codes, as was proposed by
Jon Postel, one of the founding fathers of the Internet.23
The second issue concerns who should manage ccTLDs. Many countries have
been trying to gain control over their country domains, which are considered
to be national resources. National governments have chosen a wide variety of
policy approaches.24 Transition (re-delegation) to a new institution managing
the ccTLD (delegee) within each country is approved by ICANN only if there
is no opposition from any of the interested stakeholders within the country.
Given the importance of this issue and the wide variety of approaches, there
were two important initiatives at international level to introduce a certain level
of harmonisation. The first, the GAC Principles,25 was adopted by ICANNs
GAC, which proposed policy and specified procedures for the re-delegation of
ccTLD administration. The second was Best Practices, proposed by the World
Wide Alliance of Top-Level Domains ( June 2001).
The third issue is related to the reluctance of many country domain operators
to become part of the ICANN system. So far, ICANN has not managed
to gather country domain operators under its umbrella. Country domain
operators are organised at regional level (Europe CENTR, Africa
AFTLD, Asia APTLD, North America NATLD, and South America
LACTLD). ICANN is developing Accountability Frameworks as a less
formal way of developing links with the country domain operators.
Internationalised domain names

The Internet was originally a predominantly English-language medium.
Through rapid growth, it has become a global communication facility with an
increasing number of non-English-speaking users. For a long time, the lack of
multilingual features in the Internet infrastructure was one of the main limits
of its future development.
In May 2010, after a long testing period and political uncertainties, ICANN
started approving TLDs in a wide variety of scripts, including Chinese,
Arabic, and Cyrillic. The introduction of internationalised domain names
45
Internet Governance
(IDNs) is considered to be one of the main successes of the Internet

governance regime.
Root servers
At the top of the DNS hierarchical structure, root servers attract a lot of
attention. They attract most attention in policy and academic discussion on
Internet governance issues.

The function and robustness of the DNS can be illustrated by analysing
the concern that the Internet would collapse if the root servers were ever
disabled. First, there are 13 root servers distributed around the world, the
maximal number technically possible: 10 in the USA and one each in Sweden,
the Netherlands, and Japan; of the 10 in the USA, several are operated by
US government agencies. If one server crashes, the remaining 12 would
continue to function. Even if all 13 root servers went down simultaneously,
the resolution of domain names into IP addresses (the main function of
root servers) would continue on another domain name servers, distributed
hierarchically throughout the Internet.26
Therefore, hundreds of domain name servers contain copies of the root zone
file and an immediate and catastrophic collapse of the Internet could not
occur. It would take some time before any serious functional consequences
would be noticed, during which time it would be possible to reactivate the
original servers or to create new ones.
The system of root servers is considerably strengthened by the Anycast

scheme,27 which replicates root servers throughout the world. This provides
many advantages, including an increased robustness in the DNS and the faster
resolving Internet addresses (with the Anycast scheme, the resolving servers
are closer to the end users).
The 13 root servers are managed by a diversity of organisations:28 academic/

public institutions (6), commercial companies (4), and government institutions
(3). Institutions managing root servers receive a root zone file proposed by
IANA (ICANN) and approved by the US government (Department of
Commerce). Once the content is approved by the Department of Commerce,
it is entered into the master root server operated by VeriSign under contract to
the Department.29
46
The file in the master root server is then automatically replicated on all the
other root servers. Thus, it is theoretically possible for the US government to
introduce unilateral changes to the entire DNS. This is a source of concern for
many governments.
The issues
Internationalisation of the control of root servers

Many countries have expressed concern about the current arrangement in
which the ultimate decision-making concerning the content of root servers
remains the responsibility of one country (the USA). There were various
proposals in the Internet governance process, including adopting a Root
Convention, which would put the international community in charge of policy
supervision of the root servers or, at least, grant nation states rights over their
own national domain names.
New possibilities for solutions are open with the announcement of the US
government (NTIA) to relinquish the supervision over IANA and pass to
new mechanisms/body. The transition process, that is expected to complete by
30 September 2015, should be guided by the following principles:30
P Support and enhance the multistakeholder model.
P Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS.
P Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
the IANA services.
P Maintain the openness of the Internet.
Alternative root servers feasibility and risks

Creating an alternative root server is technically straightforward. The main
question is how many followers an alternative server would have, or, more
precisely, how many computers on the Internet would point to it, when
it came to resolving domain names. Without users, any alternative DNS
becomes useless. A few attempts to create an alternative DNS have been
made: Open NIC, New.net, and Name.space. Most of them were unsuccessful,
accounting for only a few percent of Internet users.
Conceptual discussion: single vs alternative root server system

For a long time, the principle of the single root server was considered to be
one of the main Internet mantras, which were not supposed to be touched or
even discussed. Various arguments have been put forward in order to prevent
any discussions about alternatives to the single root server. One argument
47
Internet Governance
is that the current (single root server) system prevents the risk of the DNS
being used by some governments for censorship.31 However, the censorship
argument against changes in DNS policy is losing ground on a functional
basis. Governments do not need control over the DNS system or the root
zone file in order to introduce censorship. They already rely on more effective
tools, based on the filtering of Web traffic.
A more solid argument is that any alternative root servers could lead towards
the fragmentation and even, maybe, the ultimate disintegration of the Internet,
including one possible scenario of violent disintegration. The fragmentation
of the Internet could endanger one of the core functions of the Internet a
unified global communication system. How realistic is this danger? Vittorio
Bertola provides a very comprehensive analysis of this challenge.32
The US role in the management of root servers the paradox of power

The potential of removing other countries domain names from the Internet has
often been mentioned in discussions of the USAs key role in the management
of root servers. The potential power of removing a country from the Internet
(by deleting the countrys domain name) can hardly be qualified as a power,
since it has no effective use. The key element of power is forcing the other
side to act in the way the holder of power wants. The use of US power could
create unintended consequences, including countries and regions establishing
their own Internets. In such a scenario, the Internet might disintegrate and
US interests could be endangered (the predominance of US values on the
Internet, English as the Internet lingua franca, the predominance of US-based
companies in the field of e-commerce and Internet services). This power over
root servers has not been used even in the case of military conflicts between the
USA and other countries (e.g. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya).
Internet access: Internet service providers (ISPs)
Since ISPs connect end-users to the Internet, they provide the most direct and
straightforward enforcement of legal rules on the Internet. This is why many
states have started concentrating their law enforcement efforts on ISPs.
The issues
Telecommunication monopolies and ISPs

It is common in countries with telecommunication monopolies for those
monopolies to also provide Internet access. Monopolies preclude other ISPs
48
from entering this market and inhibit competition. This results in higher
prices and often a lower QoS, and fails to reduce the digital divide. In some
cases, telecommunication monopolies tolerate the existence of other ISPs, but
interfere at operational level (e.g. by providing lower bandwidths or causing
disruptions in services).
ISPs responsibility for copyright

Common to all legal systems is the principle that an ISP cannot be held
responsible for hosting materials that breach copyrights if the ISP is not aware
of the violation. The main difference lies in the legal action taken after the ISP
is informed that the material it is hosting is in breach of copyright.
US and EU law employs the Notice-Take-Down procedure, which requests

the ISP to remove such material in order to avoid being prosecuted. Japanese
law takes a more balanced approach, through the Notice-Notice-Take-Down
procedure, which provides the user of the material with the right to complain
about the request for removal.
The approach of placing limited liability on ISPs has been generally supported
by jurisprudence. Some of the most important cases where ISPs were freed
of responsibility for hosting materials in breach of copyright law are the
Scientology Case (the Netherlands),33 RIAA vs Verizon (United States),34
SOCAN vs CAIP (Canada),35 and more recently Scarlet vs SABAM
(Belgium).36
Nevertheless, recent years have witnessed an increased pressure on ISPs to

handle copyright matters, since their position of gatekeepers between end-
users and Internet content places them in the best position to control access.
This argument was speculated in promoting
See Section 3 for
legal provisions such as Hadopi Law in France
further discussion on
forcing ISPs to intervene in case of suspicions
copyright
of copyright infringements.
The role of ISPs in content policy

Under growing official pressure ISPs are gradually, albeit reluctantly,
becoming involved with content policy (e.g. defamatory or fraudulent
content). In doing so, they might have to follow two possible routes. The first
is to enforce government regulation. The second, based on self-regulation,
is for ISPs to decide on what is appropriate content themselves. This runs
the risk of privatising content control, with ISPs taking over governments
responsibilities.
49
Internet Governance
The role of ISPs in anti-spam policy

ISPs are commonly seen as the primary institutions involved with anti-spam
initiatives. Usually, ISPs have their own initiatives for reducing spam, either
through technical filtering or the introduction of anti-spam policy. The ITUs
report on spam states that ISPs should be liable for spam and proposes an
anti-spam code of conduct, which should include two main provisions:
P An ISP must prohibit its users from spamming.
P An ISP must not peer with ISPs that do not accept a similar code of
conduct.37
The problem of spam exposes ISPs to new difficulties. For instance, Verizons
anti-spam filtering led to a court case as it also blocked legitimate messages
causing inconvenience for users who did not receive their legitimate e-mail.38
Internet access: Internet bandwidth providers (IBPs)
The Internet access architecture consists of three tiers. ISPs that connect
end users constitute Tier 3. Tiers 1 and 2 consist of the Internet bandwidth
providers (IBPs). Tier 1 carriers are the major IBPs. They usually have
peering39 arrangements with other Tier 1 IBPs. The main difference
between Tier 1 and Tier 2 IBPs is that Tier 1 IBPs exchange traffic through
peering, while Tier 2 IBPs have to pay transit fees to Tier 1 providers.40
Tier 1 is usually run by large companies, such as AT&T, Verizon, Level 3
Communications, Sprint, and NTT Communications.
The issues
Should the Internet infrastructure be considered a public service?

Internet data can flow over any telecommunications medium. In practice,
facilities such as Tier 1 backbones (i.e., principal data routes between large,
strategically interconnected networks and core routers in the Internet),
commonly having optical cables or satellite links, have become critical to the
operation of the Internet. Their pivotal position within the Internet network
grants their owners the market power to impose prices and conditions for
providing their services.41 Ultimately, the functioning of the Internet could
depend on the decisions taken by the owners of central backbones.
50
Can reliability be guaranteed?
Is it possible for the global Internet community to request assurances and guarantees
for the reliable functioning of the critical Internet infrastructure from major Internet
companies and telecommunication operators? The trend in discussion is on imposing
certain public requirements on private Internet infrastructure operators.
IBPs and critical infrastructure

In early 2008, a disruption occurred with one of the main Internet cables
in the Mediterranean, near Egypt. This incident endangered access to the
Internet in a broad region extending to India. Two similar incidents happened
in 2007 (the Internet cable near Taiwan and the main Internet cable for
Pakistan), clearly showing that Internet infrastructure is part of national and
global critical infrastructure. Disruption of Internet services can affect the
overall economy and social life of a region. The possibility of such a disruption
leads to a number of questions:
P Are the main Internet cables properly protected?
P What are the respective roles of national governments, international
organisations, and private companies in the protection of Internet cables?
P How can we manage the risks associated with potential disruption of the
main Internet cables?
Telecommunications liberalisation and the role of ISPs and IBPs

There are opposing views about the extent to which ISPs and IBPs should
be subjected to existing international instruments. Developed countries
argue that the liberalised rules granted by the WTO to telecommunication
operators can also be extended to ISPs. A restrictive interpretation highlights
the fact that the WTO telecommunications regime applies only to the
telecommunications market. The regulation of the ISP market requires new
WTO rules.
Network neutrality
The Internets success lies in its design, which is based on the principle
of network neutrality. From the outset, the flow of all the content on the
Internet, whether coming from start-ups or big companies, was treated
without discrimination. New companies and innovators did not need
permission or market power to innovate on the Internet.
51
Internet Governance
The importance of network neutrality to the success of the Internet is key. The
debate has attracted a wide range of actors: everyone from the President of the
United States to human rights grassroots activists. The way in which network
neutrality is treated can influence the future development of the Internet.

Paradoxically, network traffic management has always been in place. Since
the early days of dial-up modem connection to the Internet, there has been
a gap between available bandwidth and the users bandwidth needs. In order
to address this challenge and provide quality service, Internet operators
(telecom companies and ISPs) also commonly referred to as carriers have
used various traffic management techniques to prioritise certain traffic. For
example, Internet traffic carrying voice conversation over VoIP services
(e.g. Skype) should have priority over traffic carrying a simple email: while
we can hear delays in Skype voice chat, we wont notice minor delays in an
email exchange. The need for traffic management is especially important
today with the extended demands for high bandwidth: a growing number of
users regularly use Internet voice and video calls (Skype, Google Hangout,
teleconferencing), play online games, or watch TV shows and movies in
high definition (HD) quality (e.g. services like Hulu or Netflix). Traffic
management is important for wireless communication due to, on one hand,
expansion of use of mobile devices and, on the other hand, the technical
limits of the wireless spectrum. 42 Cisco predicts that, by 2020, some 50 billion
devices will be connected to the Internet within the expanding concept of the
Internet of Things.43
Traffic management is becoming increasingly sophisticated in routing Internet

traffic in the most optimal way for providing quality service, preventing
congestion, and eliminating latency and jitter. The first discord in the
interpretation of the principle of network neutrality focused on whether any
traffic management at all should be allowed. Network neutrality purists argued
that all bits are created equal and that all Internet traffic must be treated
equally. Telecoms and ISPs challenged this view arguing that it is users who
should have equal access to Internet services and if this is to happen, Internet
traffic cannot be treated equally. If both video and email traffic are treated
equally, users wont have good video-stream reception, yet they wouldnt notice
a few seconds delay in receiving an e-mail. Even network neutrality purists
ceased to question this rationale.
52
The issues
In the network neutrality debate, there is an emerging consensus that there
is a need for appropriate traffic management. The main question is how to
interpret the adjective appropriate. There are two areas besides technical
concerns economic and human rights where the debate on traffic
management and network neutrality is particularly heated.
Economic issues
During the past few decades, many significant network operators including
both telecoms and ISPs have changed their business models: besides
providing Internet access to households and businesses, they have introduced
their own VoIP (telephony via Internet) or IPTV (television via Internet)
services, video on demand (akin to renting movies), music or video download
portals, etc. They are now competing not only with their counterparts for
providing cheaper, faster, and better quality connections, but also with the
over-the-top (OTT) service providers content and service providers like
Google, Facebook, Netflix, and Skype.
Traffic management may be an important tool when competing in service

and content provision by prioritising packages according to business-driven
preferences. For instance, an operator may decide to slow down or fully ban
the flow of data packages from a competing company (such as Skype or
Google Voice) to end-users through its network, while giving priority to data
packages of its own in-house service (such as the IP telephony or Internet
television it offers to its customers).44
At the same time, operators argue that the expansion of bandwidth demand
begs for increased investments in basic infrastructure. Seeing OTT service
providers as the ones contributing the most to the expanded demand and
benefiting the most from the improved infrastructure, they are suggesting
multi-tiered network policy models that would request the OTT service
providers to pay for the outreach to operators customers (Internet end-users)
if they wish a guaranteed quality of service. In such cases, traffic management
would again be used for economic rather than technical reasons. In order to
search for a way to the increased income, the telecoms designed a new type
of offers. Zero rating tariffs offered to customers by mobile telecom providers
allow unlimited (free) use of specific applications like Facebook or Wikipedia;
while this is certainly financially beneficial for customers, it prioritises certain
services over the other. Besides, telecoms refer to specialised services such
as HD video streaming offers that require high bandwidths, or future e-health
solutions that may need to be offered in future and would require high
quality and therefore special treatments.
53
Internet Governance
Proposals on a multi-tier Internet have been at the heart of discussions on

net neutrality for years. The business tier has also been proposed in the form
of additional online services, by Verizon and Google in their Legislative
Framework Proposal for an Open Internet45 in 2010. Proponents argue this
would bring more choice of services for users and encourage investment
in the infrastructure; opponents fear the best effort network will suffer and
eventually disappear, since both economic and business tiers would effectively
use same pipes (i.e., wireless spectrum and cables).
In the meantime, the market has brought changes in the way the Internet
works: in order to reduce transit costs and time, content providers have come
closer to users by setting up Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) caching
servers placed close to regional IXP hubs or within big regional telecoms. This
has improved network performance and costs yet only for OTT companies
that can afford to build or rent CDNs and pay the telecoms companies for
placement.46
Multi-tier Internet
The Internet traffic is currently delivered with best effort: it implies no guarantees
of a QoS, effective speed, or delivery time of data packages. Instead, users share the
available bandwidth and obtain variable bit rates (speed) depending on the traffic load
at the time.47 Traffic management therefore plays an important role in the effective
quality of service for end-users.
The multi-tier Internet concept refers to introducing a the business tier to the
Internet, i.e., special services with a guaranteed QoS beyond best effort. Proponents
explain that the business tier would run in parallel with the economic tier (the
Internet as we know it now) which would remain based on best effort; besides, they
say the OTT service providers could still decide to run their services through the best
effort network without cost, if they wished to do so.
Human rights issues

Consequences of the violation of network neutrality principles are not only
economic. The Internet has become way more important than just for the
economy it has become one of the key pillars of modern society linked to
basic human rights, including access to information, freedom of expression,
health, and education. Entirely profit-led models (even if clearly leading to
more innovation and investment) may increase the divide between the haves
and the have nots: while the rich would be using unlimited online services
with full quality, the poor might ultimately end up with useless, best-effort
services or only prioritised services a choice of which would be made by the
telecom providers based on their economic interests. Endangering Internet
openness could thereby impact fundamental rights.
54
Besides, the ability to manage network traffic based on origin or destination,

on service or content, could give authorities the opportunity to filter Internet
traffic with objectionable or sensitive content in relation to the countrys
political, ideological, religious, cultural, or other values. This opens possibilities
for political censorship through Internet traffic management.
Users or customers?
The network neutrality debate triggers linguistic differences. Proponents of network

neutrality focus on Internet users, while the others mainly commercial players
describe them as customers. Internet users are more than simply customers;
the term user implies active participation in the development of the Internet
through social networks, blogging, and other tools and the important role they
have in deciding the future of the Internet. Customers, on the other hand, like any
other customers, can decide whether or not to purchase the services on offer. Their
status on the Internet is based on a contract with the ISP and customer protection
rules. Beyond that, customers are not supposed to have any role in deciding how the
Internet is run.
Who are the main players and what are their arguments?
The position of the main players is in a state of constant flux. For example, the
Google-Verizon 2010 proposal for a mid-way approach to network neutrality
shook the positioning of the main players.48 Google has been considered
one of the main proponents of network neutrality; others include consumer
advocates, online companies, some technology companies, many major
Internet application companies including Yahoo!, Vonage, Ebay, Amazon,
EarthLink, and software companies like Microsoft.
Opponents of network neutrality include the main telecom companies, ISPs,

producers of networking equipment and hardware, and producers of video
and multimedia materials. Their arguments against any related regulation
are market-centred, starting from the need to offer what consumers want.
Contrary to the common tendencies of the telecom operators against any
regulation on net neutrality, the ETNO proposal to WCIT-12 requested
international regulation one that should prevent further national regulations
protecting net neutrality! Their US counterparts like Verizon however,
oppose the ETNO initiative.49
There are four main arguments in the network neutrality debate (Table 1).
55
Internet Governance
Table 1
Argument Proponents of network Opponents of network
neutrality neutrality
New Internet companies developed Traffic management is inevitable,
thanks to the Internets open and neutrality has never existed.
architecture, and end-users are Besides, there are already non-
benefiting from innovation and neutral leased services like VPNs
Past/future diversity of services thanks to net (virtual private networks).
argument neutrality. Network neutrality will Without network neutrality
preserve the Internet architecture restrictions Internet companies
that has enabled the fast and can develop new services in which
innovative development of the customers will be interested, with
Internet so far. guaranteed QoS.
Without network neutrality, the Without net neutrality restrictions in

Internet will look like cable TV: a commercial agreements with content
handful of big companies will control and service providers, telecoms
access and distribution of content, operators will raise funds which
deciding what users get to see and would make them more interested
how much it costs them to see it. in investing in better infrastructure.
New entrants and small businesses Better infrastructure will encourage
Economic
will not have a chance to develop, new services and innovations,
argument
especially those in developing more tailored to customers needs,
countries. bringing more revenue to all. OTT
service provides will also find value
OTT service providers already in possible innovative services
pay loads to telecoms for their with QoS, enabled by the operators
Internet connections, and invest in if not restricted by net neutrality
infrastructure like caching servers. provisions.
The Internet is the result of Network neutrality is ethically

developments by many volunteers questionable because operators
over decades. They invested have to invest in maintaining
time and creativity in developing and expanding the Internets
everything on the Internet from infrastructure to support new
technical protocols to content. The services, while most benefits
Internet is more than a business it are reaped by Internet content
Ethical
has become a global heritage of companies such as Google,
argument
mankind. It is not justifiable to have Facebook, and Amazon.
such a huge investment of time and
creativity harvested by only a few
companies who will lock the Internet
in constrained business models by
breaching network neutrality, and
turn creativity of many into profit of
a few.
Network neutrality must be imposed The Internet has developed because

by government to preserve the public of very light or no regulation.
interest. Any form of self-regulation Heavy government regulation
will leave it open for operators to could stifle creativity and the future
breach the principle of network development of the Internet.
neutrality. The open market is not
Regulation a sufficient mechanism since major The open market is based on choice,
argument global telecoms are at the core of and users can always change their
the Internet infrastructure. Even if Internet provider if not satisfied
there is a possibility to choose, this with the offer. The users choice and
is not always realised since users the market will kill bad offers and
need technical and legal literacy and sustain good ones.
awareness of the consequences of
the various choices available.
56
The basic principles

In recent years, policy debates and regulations on network neutrality have
crystallised a few key principles for network neutrality:50
P Transparency: Operators must provide complete and accurate information
on their network management practices, capacity, and the quality of their
service to customers, in a form understandable by an average user.
P Access: Users should be able to have unrestricted] access to any [legal]
content, service or application [with minimum quality of service
guaranteed for the meaningful use, as prescribed by the regulator] or to
connect any hardware that does not harm the network.
P (Non)discrimination: Operators should make no discrimination [or
reasonable discrimination] of traffic based on:
o Origin of sender or receiver.
o Type of content, type of application and service [with fair competition
no discrimination against undesired competitors or OTT service
providers services].
o Where reasonable could be any practice for public benefit (assuring
quality of service, security and resilience of network, innovations and
further investments, lowering costs, etc.) but not for business advantage
only.
Other principles most frequently debated in international forums such as the

IGF meetings and the EuroDIG dialogue include:
P Preserving freedom of expression, access to information, and choice.
P Assuring minimal quality of service and security and resilience of the
network.
P Preserving incentives for investments.
P Stimulating innovations [including opportunities for new business
models and innovative businesses, i.e., new entrants].
P Defining rights, roles, and accountability of all parties involved (providers,
regulators, users) including the right to appeal and redress.
P Preventing anti-competitive practices.
P Creating a market environment that would allow users to easily choose
and change their network operator.
P Protecting the interest of the disadvantaged, such as people with
disabilities and users and businesses in the developing world.
P Maintaining diversity of content and services.
57
Internet Governance
Policy approaches
With the network neutrality debate, another question has come to the fore:
what is the role of the legislators and regulators in broadband policy and
operator practices? One of the major challenges regulators face is whether
to act preemptively (ex-ante), in order to prevent possible breaches of the
network neutrality principle, or to respond based on precedents (ex-post) once
(and if ) the breach occurs. A challenge that legislators and policymakers face
is whether the problem should be dealt with, with hard law encoding the
principles into legislation or if soft law (guidelines and policies) would be
sufficient.51
Developed countries
In response to the Comcast case, the US Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) adopted the guidelines on network neutrality as an
update to its 2005 policy paper,52 which reflected the need for access to and
choice of content and devices, and addressed the issues of discrimination
and transparency. In the meantime, the FCCs decisions in support of net
neutrality were overruled in early 2014 by the US appeals court on the basis
of the FCCs limited mandate. It forced the FCC to consider allowing
telecom providers some form of pay for preference regimes or reclassify
broadband as a public utility, thereby obtaining a mandate to enforce net
neutrality. The EU regulatory framework on electronic communications
targets protecting freedom of expression, users choice, and access rights, along
with the transparency principle; yet it also stresses the need for investment,
fair competition with no discrimination, and opportunities for new business
models including innovative business.53 In 2014, the European Parliament
adopted the Regulation on the Single Telecoms Market, with strong net
neutrality provisions (including a rigorous definition and solid framework for
specialised services).54 Brazil,55 Chile,56 Slovenia, and the Netherlands protect
net neutrality by national legislation.
Developing countries
Due to limited infrastructure and bandwidth, regulators of developing
countries put more focus on fair usage policy affordable prices and fair
access for all. Some raise concerns over cross-border non-discrimination,
saying that the traffic from all countries should be treated the same way
with no preferences based on termination costs. Also, certain countries have
more sensitivity to internal cultural, political, or ethical aspects, thereby
understanding (in)appropriate use and management differently than others.
Concerns have been raised that the innovative models of the developed
world might hamper developing markets: by prioritising the services of
big Internet companies, emerging business and competition would be
additionally downsized, threatening innovation, local content and services,
58
and media diversity. Few major formal policies or regulatory practices on

network neutrality, however, have yet come from the developing world. Other
positions may include copying the emerging US model and allowing national
telecoms to charge global OTTs for priority, thereby adding to the income of
incumbent telecoms; or, on the contrary, enforcing net neutrality on a national
level in order to attract the OTTs to operate from outside the USA.
International organisations and NGOs

Many international organisations and user groups have also developed policy
positions with regard to network neutrality. The Council of Europe (CoE),
within its 2010 Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on network
neutrality, emphasises the fundamental rights to freedom of expression
and information;57 the Internet Society (ISOC) promotes its user-centric
approach which dominantly tackles the issues of access, choice, and
transparency through the Open Inter-networking debate rather than the one
on network neutrality.58 The Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), a
forum of US and EU consumer organisations additionally emphasises requests
for carrier non-discriminatory behaviour, calling on the USA and the EU to
entitle regulators to act as safeguards of users rights.59 Network neutrality and
a multi-tiered Internet were heavily discussed within the WCIT-12 process.
The final NETmundial document in 2014 did not include net neutrality
among the agreed principles, but has invited further discussions on the topic,
especially by the IGF, during IGF 2014.
Many NGOs are especially concerned about the future of non-commercial

and non-competing online content and services, requesting these to be
broadcast through any carrier network equal to commercial ones. They
also emphasise the rights of marginalised groups especially people with
disabilities to use content, services, and applications (including those that
demand high-bandwidth) for their needs without any limits whatsoever.
Open issues
There are a number of open issues on the network neutrality debate agenda:
P Where should the balance be between public good effects of the Internet
and user (and human) rights on the one hand, and the rights of the
providers to innovate within the networks they own on the other?
P Would an unregulated market with open competition, as advocated by the
carriers, provide unlimited (or sufficient) choice for users? And would the
users be able to make meaningful decisions?60 Or should the regulators
inevitably be empowered as safeguards, and if so, with what authority?
P How would different legal and regulatory approaches impact the
broadband market and further investment and innovation?
59
Internet Governance
P What are the implications of network (non)neutrality for the developing

world?
P What are the implications of a tiered Internet for competition,
innovation, investment, and human rights?
P Should zero rating tariffs or the development of CDNs be considered a
tiered Internet?
P Will the dominant OTT both content and service providers find a
tiered Internet and possible new services a lucrative business model as
well? In such case, will they be able to adapt it to include the users of
developing countries, or will those be left out?
P Can telecom operators innovate their business models to grow their
revenues without violating network neutrality (following successful
examples of iTunes, Google, and other OTT service providers, and
the potential for partnerships between OTT service providers and
operators61)?
P Will the need for traffic management for technical (quality) reasons be
outdated in future, due to advancements in carrier technology?
P How will the growing dependence on clouds and the Internet of Things
influence the debate on network neutrality, and vice versa?
P Should the debate be extended from traffic management on a carrier
level to content and application management on content and application
provider level, such as Google, Apple, or Facebook?
P Will consumer protection continue to be intrinsically linked to network
neutrality?
P If network neutrality is defeated, what principles will support consumer
protection in the future?
Web standards
By the late 1980s, the battle of network standards was over. TCP/IP gradually
became the main network protocol, marginalising other standards, such
as the ITU-supported X-25 (part of the Open Systems Interconnection
architecture) and many proprietary standards, such as IBMs SNA. While the
Internet facilitated normal communication between a variety of networks via
TCP/IP, the system still lacked common applications standards.
A solution was developed by Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues at CERN

(the European Organization for Nuclear Research) in Geneva, consisting
of a new standard for sharing information over the Internet, called HTML
60
(HyperText Markup Language, really just a simplification of an existing ISO

standard called SGML Standard Generalized Markup Language). Content
displayed on the Internet first had to be organised according to HTML
standards. HTML, as the basis of the World Wide Web, paved the way for
the Internets exponential growth.
Since its first version, HTML has been constantly upgraded with new
features. The growing relevance of the Internet has put the question of the
standardisation of HTML into focus. This was particularly relevant during
the Browser Wars between Netscape and Microsoft, when each company tried
to strengthen its market position by influencing HTML standards. While
basic HTML only handled text and photos, newer Internet applications
required more sophisticated technologies for managing databases, video, and
animation. Such a variety of applications required considerable standardisation
efforts in order to ensure that Internet content could be properly viewed by
the majority of Internet browsers.
Application standardisation entered a new phase with the emergence of

XML (eXtended Markup Language), which provided greater flexibility in
the setting of standards for Internet content. New sets of XML standards
have also been introduced. For example, the standard for the distribution of
wireless content is called Wireless Markup Language (WML). Application
standardisation is carried out mainly within the framework of the W3C,
headed by Tim Berners-Lee. It is interesting to note that in spite of its high
relevance to the Internet, so far, the W3C has not attracted much attention in
the debate on Internet governance.
Cloud computing
Cloud computing could be described as the shift of data from hard disks
on our computers to servers in the clouds (i.e., huge server farms). The first
wave of cloud computing started with the use of online mail servers (Gmail,
Yahoo!), social media applications (Facebook, Twitter) and online applications
(Wikis, blogs, Google docs). Apart from everyday applications, cloud
computing is extensively used for business software. More and more of our
digital assets are moving from our hard disks to the cloud. The main players in
cloud computing are Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook, who
either already have or plan to develop big server farms.
61
Internet Governance
In the early days of computers, there were powerful mainframe computers

and dumb workstations. The power was in the centre. After that, for a long
time, with PCs and Windows applications, computer power moved to the
periphery. Will cloud computing close the circle? Are we going to have a few
big central computers/server farms and billions of dumb units in the form
of notebooks, monitors, and mobile phones? The answer to this and other
questions will need time. Currently, we can identify a few Internet governance
issues which are very likely to emerge in parallel with the development of
cloud computing.
P With more services delivered online, modern society will increase its
dependence on the Internet. In the past, when the Internet went down
we werent able to send e-mail or browse the Net. In the era of cloud
computing, we may not even be able to write text or do calculations.
This higher dependence on the Internet will imply higher pressure on its
robustness and reliability.
P With more of our personal data stored on clouds, the question of privacy
and data protection will become central. Will we have control of our text
files, e-mails, and other data? Could cloud operators use this data without
our permission? Who will have access to our data?
P With a growing volume of information assets going digital, countries may
become uncomfortable with having national information assets outside
national borders. They may try to create national or regional clouds or
make sure that existing clouds are managed with some international
supervision. Nationalisation of clouds could be further accelerated by the
fact that all main operators in this field are based in the United States.
Some argue that the current ICANN-centred debate may be replaced by
an Internet governance debate on the regulation of cloud computing.
P With diverse operators of cloud computing, the question of standards is
becoming very important. The adoption of common standards will ensure
a smooth transfer of data among different clouds (e.g. from Google to
Apple). One possibility which is being discussed is the adoption of open
standards by the main players in cloud computing.
Internet governance of cloud computing is likely to emerge through the

interplay of various actors and bodies. For example, the EU is concerned with
privacy and data protection. The Safe Harbour agreement which was supposed
to solve the problem of different privacy regimes in the USA and the EU
does not work well. With more digital data crossing the Atlantic Ocean, the
EU and the USA will have to address the question of protection of privacy
according to EU regulation by US companies, the main operators in cloud
computing. This issue came into sharper focus after the Snowden revelations
of mass surveillance. When it comes to standards, it is very likely that the
main companies will agree among themselves. Google has already started
62
Figure 9
a strong push towards open standards by establishing the Data Liberation

Front, aimed at ensuring a smooth transition of data between different
clouds. These are the first building blocks that will address the question of
the Internet governance of cloud computing. Others are likely to emerge as
solutions for concrete policy problems.
63
Internet Governance
Convergence: Internet telecommunication multimedia
Historically, telecommunication, broadcasting, and other related areas

were separate industry segments; they used different technologies and
were governed by different regulations. The broad and prevailing use of
the Internet has aided in the convergence of technological platforms for
telecommunication, broadcasting, and information delivery. Today, we can
make telephone calls, watch TV, and share music on our computers via the
Internet. Only a few years ago it was handled by different technological
systems.
In the field of traditional telecommunication, the main point of convergence

is VoIP. The growing popularity of VoIP systems such as Skype is based on
lower price, the possibility of integrating data and voice communication
lines, and the use of advanced PC- and mobile-devices-based tools. With
YouTube and similar services, the Internet is also converging with traditional
multimedia and entertainment services. While technical convergence is going
ahead at a rapid pace, its economic and legal consequences will require some
time to evolve.
The issues
The economic implications of convergence

At the economic level, convergence has started to reshape traditional markets
by putting companies that previously operated in separate domains, into direct
competition. Companies use different strategies. The most frequent approach
is merger and acquisition.
The need for a legal framework

The legal system was the slowest to adjust to the changes caused by
technological and economic convergence. Each segment telecommunication,
broadcasting, and information delivery has its own special regulatory
framework. This convergence opens up several governance and regulatory
questions:
P What is going to happen to the existing national and international
regimes in such fields as telephony and broadcasting?
P Will new regimes be developed that focus mainly on the Internet?
P Should the regulation of convergence be carried out by public authorities
(states and international organisations) or through self-regulation?
64
Some countries, like Malaysia and Switzerland, as well as the EU, have started
providing answers to these questions. Malaysia adopted the Communications
and Multimedia Act in 1998, establishing a general framework for the
regulation of convergence. The EUs regulatory framework for electronic
communications, transposed into national laws, is also a step in this direction,
as are the Swiss telecommunication laws and regulations.
The risk of convergence: the merger of cable operators and ISPs

In many countries, broadband Internet has been introduced via cable
networks. This is especially true in the USA, where cable Internet is much
more prevalent than ADSL (asymmetric digital subscriber line), the other
main Internet broadband option. What are the risks associated with this
convergence?
Some parties argue that the cable operators buffering between users and the
Internet could challenge the net neutrality principle.
The main difference between ADSL and cable is that cable is not regulated
by so-called common carrier rules which apply to the telephony system and
specify that access should be non-discriminatory. Cable operators are not
subject to these rules, giving them complete control over their subscribers
Internet access. They can block the use of certain applications and control
the access to certain materials. Surveillance possibilities and consequently the
ability to violate privacy are much greater with the cable Internet since access
is controlled through a system similar to local area networks (LANs), which
provides a high level of direct control of users.
In a paper on this issue, the American Civil Liberties Union provides the
following example of the risks of cable Internet monopolies: This is like the
phone company being allowed to own restaurants and then provide good
service and clear signals to customers who call Dominos and frequent busy
signals, disconnects and static for those calling Pizza Hut.62
This convergence problem may be addressed by deciding if the cable Internet

is an information service or a telecommunication service. If it is the latter, it
will have to be regulated through common carrier rules.
65
Internet Governance
Cybersecurity

The Internet was originally designed for use by a closed circle mainly of
academics. Communication was open. Security was not a concern.
Cybersecurity came into sharper focus with the Internet expansion beyond
the circle of the Internet pioneers. The Internet reiterated the old truism that
technology can be both enabling and threatening. What can be used to the
advantage of society can also be used to its disadvantage.
Cybersecurity issues can be classified according to three criteria:

P Type of action. Classification based on type of action may include data
interception, data interference, illegal access, spyware, data corruption,
sabotage, denial-of-service, and identity theft.
P Type of perpetrator. Possible perpetrators might include hackers,
cybercriminals, cyberwarriors, and cyberterrorists.
P Type of target. Potential targets are numerous, ranging from individuals,
private companies, and public institutions to critical infrastructures,
governments, and military assets.
The cybersecurity framework includes policy principles, instruments, and

institutions dealing with cybersecurity. It is an umbrella concept covering
several areas:
P Critical information infrastructure protection (CIIP) is ever more
important because the global critical infrastructure now depends on
the Internet. Many vital parts of global society including energy,
water, and finance are heavily dependent on the Internet and other
computer networks as an information infrastructure. This includes not
only the equipment and links, but also the protocols, data centres, and the
critical Internet resources (CIR). The vulnerability of the Internet is the
vulnerability of modern society.
P Cybercrime is crime committed via the Internet and computer systems.
It includes old, i.e., traditional, crimes now conducted through cyberspace
(like various frauds), crimes that have evolved due to technology (e.g.
credit card frauds and child abuse), new crimes that have emerged with
the Internet (e.g. denial-of-service attacks and pay-per-click frauds), and
cybercrime tools which are used to facilitate other crimes (e.g. botnets).
Combating child pornography is the most developed area of international
cooperation; this cooperation is missing, however, in dismantling global
66
cybercrime black markets which offer outsourced criminal services and

easy-to-use digital weapons (e.g. viruses and botnets) to almost anyone.
P Cyberconflicts, often labelled as cyberwar, have high media visibility
and still low policy and legal reflections. Cyberconflicts can be dissected
in three main areas: conduct of cyberconflicts (i.e., can the existing law,
mainly The Hague Conventions, be applied to cyberspace; if not, what
type of new legal instruments should be developed?); weapons and
disarmament (i.e., how to introduce cyberweapons into the disarmament
process); and humanitarian law (i.e., how to apply the Geneva
Conventions to cyberconflicts).
Cybersecurity, as a policy space, is in its formative phase, with the ensuing

conceptual and terminological confusion. Other terms are also in general
discussion without the necessary policy precision: cyber-riots, cyberterrorism,
cybersabotage, etc. Cyberterrorism, particularly, came into sharper focus after
9/11, when an increasing number of cyberterrorist attacks were reported.
Cyberterrorists use similar tools to cybercriminals, but for a different end.
While cybercriminals are motivated mainly by financial gain, cyberterrorists
aim to cause major public disruption and chaos.
Cybersecurity policy initiatives

Many national, regional, and global initiatives focus on cybersecurity. At
national level, a growing volume of legislation and jurisprudence deals with
cybersecurity, with a focus on combating cybercrime, and more and more the
protection of critical information infrastructure from sabotage and attacks
as a result of terrorism or conflicts. It is difficult to find a developed country
without some initiative focusing on cybersecurity.
At international level, the ITU is the most active organisation; it has produced
a large number of security frameworks, architectures, and standards, including
X.509, which provides the basis for the public key infrastructure (PKI), used,
for example, in the secure version of HTTP(S) (HyperText Transfer Protocol
(Secure)). The ITU moved beyond strictly technical aspects and launched the
Global Cybersecurity Agenda.63 This initiative encompasses legal measures,
policy cooperation, and capacity building. Furthermore, at WCIT-12, new
articles on security and robustness of networks and on unsolicited bulk
electronic communications (usually referred to as spam) were added to the
ITRs.64
The Commonwealth Cybercrime Initiative (CCI) was given its mandate from
Heads of government of the Commonwealth in 2011 to improve legislation
and the capacity of member states to tackle cyber crime.65 Dozens of partners
involved with CCI assist interested countries with providing scoping missions,
67
Internet Governance
capacity building programmes, and model law outlines in the fields of

cybercrime and cybersecurity in general.
The G8 also has a few initiatives in the field of cybersecurity designed

to improve cooperation between law enforcement agencies. It formed
a Subgroup on High Tech Crime to address the establishment of 24/7
communication between the cybersecurity centres of member states, to train
staff, and to improve state-based legal systems that will combat cybercrime
and promote cooperation between the ICT industry and law enforcement
agencies.
The United Nations General Assembly passed several resolutions on a yearly

basis on developments in the field of information and telecommunications
in the context of international security, specifically resolutions 53/70 in
1998, 54/49 in 1999, 55/28 in 2000, 56/19 in 2001, 57/239 in 2002, and
58/199 in 2003. Since 1998, all subsequent resolutions have included similar
content, without any significant improvement. Apart from these routine
resolutions, the main breakthrough was in the recent set of recommendations
for negotiations of the cybersecurity treaty, which were submitted to the UN
Secretary General by 15 member states, including all permanent members of
the UN Security Council.
A major international legal instrument related to cybersecurity is the Council

of Europes Convention on Cybercrime,66 which entered into force on 1 July
2004. Some countries have established bilateral arrangements. The USA has
bilateral agreements on legal cooperation in criminal matters with more than
20 other countries (Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties
(MLATs)). These agreements also apply in cybercrime cases.
Cyberconflict remains an area with the least advances in terms of policy

developments. At the same time, an increasing number of states appear to be
developing their own cybertools for warfare and intelligence, as was presented
by the UN report of 2010.67 In 2013, the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence
Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE), prepared the Tallinn Manual elaborating
on the implementation of the existing international humanitarian law on
entering and conducting a war (jus ad bellum and jus in bello) in cyberspace.68
One attempt by academics and non-state actors to draft an international

agreement is that of the Stanford Draft Convention on Protection from
Cyber Crime and Terrorism.69 This draft recommends the establishment
of an international body, named the Agency for Information Infrastructure
Protection (AIIP).
68
The issues
Influence of Internet architecture on cybersecurity

The very nature of the Internet organisation affects its security. Should we
continue with the current approach of building security on a pre-existing
non-secure foundation or modify the basis of the Internets infrastructure?
How would such a change affect other features of the Internet, especially its
openness and its transparency? Most of the past development of Internet
standards aimed at improving performance or introducing new applications.
Security was not a priority. It is unclear whether the IETF will be able to
change e-mail standards to provide proper authentication and, ultimately,
reduce the misuse of the Internet (e.g. spam, cybercrime). Given the
controversy surrounding any changes to basic Internet standards, it is likely
that security-related improvements in the basic Internet protocol will be
gradual and slow. Yet decisive steps are starting to be implemented in this
direction; the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC)70 is
a good illustrative example. Following almost 12 years of research, trials,
and debates within the technical community, DNSSEC first started to
be deployed for some ccTLDs and from 2010 it was also implemented at
the root server level. However, further challenges reside in the large-scale
adoption of this new security standard down the ladder by the domain name
registrars, ISPs, and website owners.71
Figure 10
69
Internet Governance
Important improvements to security, however, can be achieved through the

proper configuration of the main Internet nodes such as the DNS servers
around the world. Many incidents, such as the 2013 private cyberwar between
two companies CyberBunker and Spamhaus that resulted in temporary
congestion of large portions of the global Internet, are possible because of
several dozens of millions of misconfigured DNS servers around the world
known as open resolvers.72 Besides, introducing security-by-design into
all new technologies software, hardware, and protocols would bring
additional security layers.
Future development of e-commerce demands a high level of cybersecurity

Cybersecurity is often mentioned as one of the preconditions for the rapid
growth of e-commerce. Without a secure and reliable Internet, customers
will be reluctant to provide confidential information online, such as credit
card numbers. The same applies to online banking and the use of electronic
money. Increasing numbers of successful attacks on companies servers for
acquiring customers personal data and credit card numbers are evident, such
as the collection of over 1.2 billion user-name-and-password combinations
and half a billion e-mail addresses stolen in 2014 by one Russian gang.73
These undermine user trust in online services. If general cybersecurity only
slowly improves (and with an accompanying lack of standards), it is likely
that the business sector will push for faster developments in cybersecurity.
This may lead to further challenges for the principle of net neutrality and the
development of a new Internet, which would facilitate, among other things,
more secure Internet communication.
Figure 11
70
Surveillance and espionage

The 2013 revelations by the NSA employee Edward Snowden have again
confirmed that states the USA included exploit the vulnerabilities of
the Internet for their own interests. The NSAs PRISM project based its
surveillance capabilities on the ability to access the cables, routers, and
cloud servers of major Internet companies (US-based telecoms, service, and
content providers). In response, other countries especially EU and BRICS
have started considering mitigation tactics, including laying their own
intercontinental submarine cable connections to avoid passing through US
nodes,74 requiring Internet companies to store personal data of their citizens
on data centres within their jurisdictions, and encouraging the development of
local services and content.
In 2013, the US-based security company Mandiant released a report about a

cyber-espionage campaign against US companies conducted by China.75 After
the USA charged five Chinese military hackers, China in turn accused the
USA of cyber-espionage, which resulted with the suspension of the activities
of the China-US Cyber Working Group.76
The increasing militarisation of cyberspace through the use of exploits and

hacking tools by states leads to increasing political tension. Such tension may
accelerate the need for global efforts to prevent the proliferation of cyber-
arms.
Cybersecurity and human rights

The link between cybersecurity and human rights is highly relevant for the
future of the Internet. So far, these two fields are being addressed separately
in their respective silos. However, recent experiences (SOPA, ACTA,
PRISM/NSA) show that the protection of human rights (privacy, freedom of
expression, access) is not only a value-based priority, it is also a very practical
tool for ensuring that the Internet remains open and secure. Human rights are
a matter of cyber realpolitik.
Individual Internet users are the pillars of cybersecurity. Yet they are often the
weakest link when it comes to protection from cyber-attacks. Our personal
computers are used to stage cyber-attacks (as part of botnets) and spread
viruses and malware. Unprotected access to our computers and mobile devices
offers a backdoor for access to the datasets of our companies or institutions,
and compromises many more computers.
Concerns of the end users, however, are usually not about possible greater
damage (often due to ignorance) as a result of their compromised computer,
71
Internet Governance
but rather about the protection of their own data, and thus integrity and
privacy and rights in general. Post-PRISM discussions emphasise making
personal computers more surveillance-safe, including how to employ
encryption, regular patches and updates, IPSec and VPN protocols77
awareness measures that would, in fact, also prevent unprotected access and
contribute to better general cybersecurity.
Global cybersecurity built around the important role of individual Internet

users has human rights as one of its cornerstones. The recognition of this
link has already started emerging in policy documents. The EUs cybersecurity
strategy, for instance, considers preserving an open, free, and secure cyberspace
including support for the promotion and protection of fundamental rights
as one of its five strategy pillars.78
The main challenge will be to overcome the post-9/11 dominant view of win/
lose: more security implies fewer human rights and vice versa. Yet there are
many win/win areas in empowering and protecting individuals as pillars of the
cybersecurity system (access to information, privacy protection), which should
be given priority.
Encryption
Today, encryption refers to the scrambling of electronic documents and

communication into an unreadable format which can be read only through
the use of encryption software. Traditionally, governments were the only
players who had the power and the know-how to develop and deploy
powerful encryption in their military and diplomatic communications. With
packages such as Pretty Good Privacy, encryption has become affordable
for any Internet users, including criminals and terrorists. It has triggered
many governance issues related to finding the right balance between the
need to respect privacy of communication of Internet users and the need for
governments to monitor some types of communication of relevance for the
national security (potential criminal and terrorist activity remains an issue).
The international aspects of encryption policy are relevant to the discussion

of Internet governance inasmuch as the regulation of encryption should be
global, or at least, involve those countries capable of producing encryption
tools.
For example, the US policy of export control of encryption software was not
very successful because it could not control international distribution. US
72
software companies initiated a strong lobbying campaign arguing that export

controls do not increase national security, but rather undermine US business
interests.
International regimes for encryption tools

Encryption has been tackled in two contexts: the Wassenaar Arrangement
and the OECD. The Wassenaar Arrangement is an international regime
adopted by 41 countries to restrict the export of conventional weapons and
dual use technologies to countries at war or considered to be pariah states.79
The arrangement established a secretariat in Vienna. US lobbying, with the
Wassenaar Group, aimed at extending the Clipper Approach80 internationally,
by controlling encryption software through a key escrow. This was resisted by
many countries, especially Japan and the Scandinavian countries.
A compromise was reached in 1998 through the introduction of cryptography

guidelines, which included dual-use control list hardware and software
cryptography products above 56 bits. This extension included Internet
tools, such as Web browsers and e-mail. It is interesting to note that this
arrangement does not cover intangible transfers, such as downloading. The
failure to introduce an international version of Clipper contributed to the
withdrawal of this proposal internally in the USA itself. In this example of the
link between national and international arenas, international developments
had a decisive impact on national ones.
The OECD is another forum for international cooperation in the field

of encryption. Although the OECD does not produce legally binding
documents, its guidelines on various issues are highly respected. They are
the result of an expert approach and a consensus-based decision-making
process. Most of its guidelines are eventually incorporated into national
laws. The question of encryption was a highly controversial topic in OECD
activities. It was initiated in 1996 with a US proposal for the adoption of a
key escrow as an international standard. Similar to Wassenaar, negotiations
on the US proposal to adopt a key escrow with international standards were
strongly opposed by Japan and the Scandinavian countries. The result was a
compromise specification of the main encryption policy elements.
A few attempts to develop an international regime for encryption, mainly

within the context of the Wassenaar Arrangement, did not result in the
development of an effective international regime. It is still possible to obtain
powerful encryption software on the Internet.
73
Internet Governance
Spam

Spam is usually defined as unsolicited e-mail, which is sent to a wide number
of Internet users. Spam is mainly used for commercial promotion. Its other
uses include social activism, political campaigning, and the distribution
of pornographic materials. Spam is classified in the infrastructure basket
because it affects the normal functioning of the Internet by impeding one of
the Internets core applications, e-mail. It is one of the Internet governance
issues that affect almost everyone who connects to the Internet. According
to statistics from 2014, 66% of e-mail traffic is spam.81Besides the fact that
it is annoying, spam also causes considerable economic loss, both in terms of
bandwidth used and lost time spent checking/deleting it.
Figure 12
Spam can be combated through both
technical and legal means. On the
technical side, many applications for
filtering messages and detecting spam
are available. The main problem with
filtering systems is that they are known to
delete non-spam messages, too. The anti-
spam industry is a growing sector, with
increasingly sophisticated applications
capable of distinguishing spam from
regular messages. Technical methods
have only a limited effect and require
complementary legal measures.
On the legal side, many states have reacted by introducing new anti-spam
laws. In the USA, the Can-Spam Law involves a delicate balance between
allowing e-mail-based promotion and preventing spam.82 Although the law
prescribes severe penalties for distributing spam, including prison terms of
up to five years, some of its provisions, according to critics, tolerate or might
even encourage spam activity. The starting, default, position set out in the law
is that spam is allowed until the receiver of spam messages says stop (by using
an opt-out clause).
In July 2003, the EU introduced its own anti-spam law as part of its directive
on privacy and electronic communications. The EU law encourages self-
regulation and private sector initiatives that would lead towards a reduction in
spam.83
74
Spam and policy fashion
Spam is an illustrative example of the trends and, sometimes, fashion in global policy.
In 2005, spam was an important Internet governance issue, listed as a significant
Internet governance issue in the WGIG report. Spam was discussed at WSIS Tunis and
at numerous international meetings. Spam was also frequently covered in the media.
Since 2005, the volume of spam has tripled, according to conservative estimates
(2005: 30 billion messages per day; 2008: 100 billion messages per day; 2010: 200
billion messages per day). The policy relevance of spam does not follow this trend.
Spam now has a very low visibility in global policy processes.
In November 2006, the European Commission adopted its Communication

on Fighting Spam, Spyware and Malicious Software. The Communication
identifies a number of actions to promote the implementation and
enforcement of the existing legislation outlined above, as the lack of
enforcement is seen as the main problem.
The international response

Both of the anti-spam laws adopted in the USA and the EU have one
weakness: a lack of provision for preventing cross-border spam. The Canadian
Industry Minister, Lucienne Robillard, stated that the problem cannot be
solved on a country by country basis.84 A similar conclusion was reached in
a study on the EU anti-spam law carried out by the Institute for Information
Law at the University of Amsterdam: The simple fact that most spam
originates from outside the EU restricts the European Unions Directives
effectiveness considerably.85 A global solution is required, implemented
through an international treaty or some similar mechanism.
An MoU signed by Australia, Korea, and the UK is one of the first examples
of international cooperation in the anti-spam campaign.
The OECD established a task force on spam and prepared an anti-spam

toolkit. The ITU was also proactive by organising the Thematic Meeting on
Countering Spam (2004) to consider various possibilities of establishing a
global Memorandum of Understanding on Combating Spam.86 At regional
level, the EU established the Network of Anti-Spam Enforcement Agencies,
and APEC prepared a set of consumer guidelines.
Another possible anti-spam approach was undertaken by the leading Internet

companies that host e-mail accounts: America Online, British Telecom,
Comcast, EarthLink, Microsoft, and Yahoo! They established in 2003 the
75
Internet Governance
Anti-Spam Technical Alliance (ASTA) with the main task of coordinating

technical and policy-related anti-spam activities.
The issues
Different definitions of spam

Different understandings of spam affect the anti-spam campaign. In the USA,
a general concern about the protection of the freedom of speech and the First
Amendment affect the anti-spam campaign as well. US legislators consider
spam to be only unsolicited commercial e-mail leaving out other types of
spam, including political activism and pornography. In most other countries,
spam is considered to be any unsolicited bulk e-mail regardless of its content.
Since most spam is generated from the USA, this difference in definitions
seriously limits any possibility of introducing an effective international anti-
spam mechanism.
Spam and e-mail authentication

One of the structural enablers of spam is the possibility of sending e-mail
messages with a fake senders address. There is a possible technical solution
to this problem, which would require changes in existing Internet e-mail
standards. The IETF has been considering changes to the e-mail protocol,
which would ensure the authentication of e-mail. This is an example of
how technical issues (standards) may affect policy. A possible trade-off that
the introduction of e-mail authentication would bring is the restriction of
anonymity on the Internet.
The need for global action

Most spam originates from outside a given country. It is a global problem
requiring a global solution. There are various initiatives that could lead towards
improved global cooperation. Some of them, such as bilateral MOUs, have
already been mentioned. Others include such actions as capacity building and
information exchange. A more comprehensive solution would involve some
sort of global anti-spam instrument. So far, developed countries prefer the
strengthening of national legislations coupled with bilateral or regional anti-
spam campaigns. Given their disadvantaged position of receiving a global
public bad originating mainly from developed countries, most developing
countries are interested in shaping a global response to the spam problem.
76
Endnotes
1
The terms Internet and www are sometimes used interchangeably; however, there is a
difference. The Internet is a network of networks connected by TCP/IP. Sometimes, the
term Internet is used to encompass everything, including infrastructure, applications
(e-mail, ftp, Web) and content. The www is just one of many Internet applications, a system
of interlinked documents connected with the help of the HyperText Transfer Protocol
(HTTP).
2
Following a policy of technological neutrality, the European Union has been using the
term electronic communications instead of telecommunications. This covers, for example,
Internet traffic over the electronic grid, which is not part of the telecommunications
infrastructure.
3
Internet transfer via an electric grid is called Power Line Communication (PLC). The use
of the power grid would make the Internet more accessible to many users. For a technical
and organisational review of this facility, please consult: Palet J (2003) Addressing the Digital
Divide with IPv6-enabled Broadband Power Line Communication, Internet Society, ISOC
Member Briefing No. 13. Available at http://www.isoc.org/briefings/013 [accessed 13
February 2014].
4
The liberalisation of telecommunication markets of WTO members was formalised in
1998 in the so-called Basic Telecommunication Agreement (BTA). Following the adoption
of BTA, more than 100 countries began the liberalisation process, characterised by the
privatisation of national telecommunication monopolies, the introduction of competition,
and the establishment of national regulators. The agreement is formally called The Fourth
Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (adopted on 30 April 1996 and
entering into force on 5 February 1998). Available at http://www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/serv_e/4prote_e.htm [accessed 13 February 2014].
5
ITU (no date) Signatories of the Final Acts WCIT-12. Available at http://www.itu.int/
osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html [accessed 11 August 2014].
6
One of the controversies surrounding WSIS was the ITUs intention to become more
involved in the Internet governance process, especially within a domain handled by
ICANN. For more information about ITUs Internet policy, please consult http://www.itu.
int/osg/csd/intgov/ [accessed 13 February 2014].
7
For more information about the WTOs role in the field of telecommunications, consult
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/telecom_e.htm [accessed 13
February 2014].
8
Latvia and Moldova are good examples of how it is possible to make a quantum leap
forward in the quick development of a telecommunications infrastructure through the
introduction of wireless communication; check http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/
inet/99/proceedings/4d/4d_2.htm [accessed 13 February 2014].
9
Nothias J-C (2012) The hypocrisy threatening the future of the Internet. The Global Journal.
Available at http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/904/ [accessed 10 August 2014].
77
Internet Governance
10
Initially the Wi-Fi Alliance was called the Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance
(WECA). It received its current name in 2002. It was established by some of the leading
developers of telecom equipment including: 3Com, Cisco, Intersil, Agere, and Nokia.
11
It is estimated that this investment totals approximately 109 billion, according to
The Economist (2003) Beyond the Bubble Survey: Telecoms. Available at http://www.
economist.com/node/2098913 [accessed 13 February 2014].
12
For more information about the EU radio spectrum policy see http://ec.europa.eu/
digital-agenda/en/what-radio-spectrum-policy [accessed 13 February 2014].
13
The current RIRs are: ARIN (the American Registry for Internet Numbers), APNIC (the
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre), LACNIC (the Latin American and Caribbean
IP Address Regional Registry), RIPE NCC (Reseaux IP Europens Network Coordination
Centre covering Europe and the Middle East) and AFRINIC (the African Network
Information Centre). A detailed explanation of the RIR system is available at http://www.
ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/internet-technical-community/
the-rir-system [accessed 13 February 2014].
14
For a detailed discussion on IPv6, please consult the research project: IP Allocation and
IPv6 by Jean Philmon Kissangou, Marsha Guthrie, and Mwende Njiraini, part of the
2005 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme. Available at http://archive1.
diplomacy.edu/poolbin.asp?IDPool=130 [accessed 13 February 2014].
15
For a comprehensive and highly technical survey of TCP/IP Security, please consult:
Chambers C, Dolske J and Iyer J., TCP/IP Security, Department of Computer and
Information Science, Ohio State University. Available at http://www.linuxsecurity.com/
resource_files/documentation/tcpip-security.html [accessed13 February 2014].
16
One of the few referential documents on the domain name system (DNS) is RFC 1591
(March 1994), which specifies the governance structure of DNS. Available at http://www.
ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt [accessed 13 February 2014].
17
An overview of the gTLDs with a link to the list of all the TLDs is available at http://
www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/about [accessed 13 February 2014].
18
The text of proposal is available at http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/
xxx.htm; the retrospective of the .XXX application, within the minutes of the meeting of 30
March 2007 when it was rejected by the ICANN Board, is available at http://www.icann.
org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30mar07-en.htm#_blank [accessed 13
February 2014].
19
The US government did not use an ICANN procedure. It used its de facto authority via a
letter sent by the US Department of Commerce to the Chairman of ICANN.
20
The application form for the registration of the .cat domain: http://archive.icann.org/en/
tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/cat.htm [accessed 13 February 2014].
21
Summary report ICANN 50. Geneva Internet Platform. Available at http://www.
giplatform.org/resources/gip-summary-report-icann-50 [accessed 9 August 2014].
22
The ITUs website contains a comprehensive bibliography of materials related to Country
Domain Management; most materials were delivered at the ITU Workshop on Country
Domain Management held in Kuala Lumpur. Available at http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/
worksem/cctld/kualalumpur0704/contributions/index.html [accessed 13 February 2014].
78
23
The IANA Report on the county code top-level domain for Palestine is available at http://
www.iana.org/reports/ps-report-22mar00.htm [accessed 13 February 2014].
24
For example, South Africa used its sovereign rights as an argument in winning back control
of its country domain. A newly enacted law specifies that the use of the country domain
outside the parameters prescribed by the South African government will be considered
a crime. The Brazilian model of the management of country domains is usually quoted
as a successful example of a multistakeholder approach. The national body in charge
of Brazilian domains is open to all key players, including government authorities, the
business sector, and civil society. Cambodias transfer of country domain management from
nongovernmental to governmental control is often cited as an example of an unsuccessful
transition. The government reduced the quality of services and introduced higher fees,
which have made the registration of Cambodian domains much more difficult. For more
information, please consult: Alfonso C (2004) BR: CCTLD An asset of the commons, in
MacLean D (ed) Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration. New York: UN ICT Task
Force, pp. 291-299; Klien N (2004) Internet Governance: Perspectives from Cambodia in
MacLean D (ed) Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration. New York: UN ICT Task
Force, pp. 227-237. Excerpts available at http://books.google.ro/books?id=pEFAypES4t0
C&printsec=frontcover&hl=ro#v=onepage&q&f=false [accessed 13 February 2014].
25
ICANN (2005) Principles for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code
Top-Level Domains. Available at http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/gac/gac-
cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm [accessed 13 February 2014].
26
The list of root zone servers, their nodes and positions, and managing organisations is
available at http://www.root-servers.org/ [accessed 13 February 2014].
27
ISC Inc. (2003) Hierarchical Anycast for Global Distribution. Available at http://ftp.isc.
org/isc/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.html [accessed 13 February 2014].
28
IANA root servers. Available at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/servers [accessed 9
August 2014].
29
The root zone file is publicly available at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/files
30
NTIA (2014) NTIA announces intent to transition key Internet domain names functions.
Available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-
transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions[accessed 9 August 2014].
31
US officials counter that the Internet is too valuable to tinker with or place under an
international body like the UN: Whats at risk is the bureaucratisation of the Internet
and innovation, said Michael Gallagher, the Department of Commerce official who
administered the governments tie to ICANN. Mr Gallagher and other backers of ICANN
also pointed out that the countries loudest in demanding more international input
China, Libya, Syria, Cuba have non-democratic governments. Allowing these nations to
influence how the Internet works could hinder the freedom of speech, they said. (Source:
Rhoads C (2006) Endangered Domain: In Threat to Internets Clout, Some Are Starting
Alternatives. The Wall Street Journal, 19 January 2006; p. A1).
32
Bertola V (no date) Oversight and multiple root server systems. Available at http://wgig.
org/docs/book/Vittorio_Bertola.html [accessed 13 February 2014].
79
Internet Governance
33
The Court of Appeal of The Hague ruled against the Church of Scientology in its
copyright infringement suit against a Dutch writer and her ISP, XS4ALL. The writer,
formerly a practicing Scientologist, posted to a website parts of confidential church
documents, and the church sued under the Dutch Copyright Act of 1912. In 1999, the
District Court ruled in favour of the defendants, citing freedom of speech concerns.
However, that court also ruled that ISPs should be held liable for posted materials that
might violate existing copyrights. The Court of Appeal affirmed the first ruling, but reversed
the second, holding that ISPs were not liable for posted materials. For more information
consult Gelman L (2003) Church of Scientology Loses Copyright Infringement Case in
Dutch Court. Available at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets001638.shtml [accessed
13 February 2014].
34
For more information on this case see Electronic Privacy Information Center (2004) RIAA
vs Verizon. Available at http://epic.org/privacy/copyright/verizon/ [accessed 13 February
2014].
35
The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument of the Society of Composers, Authors
and Music Publishers of Canada that Canadian ISPs should pay royalties because some
of their customers download copyrighted works (SOCAN vs CAIP). More information
available at http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc45/2004scc45.html
36
SABAM (the Belgian collective society Socit belge des auteurs, compositeurs et diteurs)
wanted the ISP Scarlet to install a generalised filtering system for all incoming and
outgoing electronic communications passing through its services and to block potentially
unlawful communications. In First Instance, while refusing the liability of the ISP, the
Brussels Court concluded that the SABAMs claim was legitimate and that a filtering
system had to be deployed. Scarlet appealed and the case was referred to the Court of
Justice of the European Union. In its decision, the Court of Justice ruled that a filtering and
blocking system for all its customers for an unlimited period, in abstracto and as preventive
measure, violates fundamental rights, more particularly the right to privacy, freedom of
communication and freedom of information. In addition, it breaches the freedom of ISPs to
conduct business. For more information, see Scarlet v SABAM: a win for fundamental rights
and Internet freedoms EDRi-gram newsletter No. 9.23, 30 November 2011. Available at
http://edri.org/edrigramnumber9-23scarlet-sabam-win-fundamental-rights [accessed
15 March 2014].
37
Williams F (2006) ISPs should be liable for spam, says UN report, Financial
Times. Available at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/09b837c0-ae02-11da-8ffb-
0000779e2340,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F09b837c0-ae02-11da-8ffb-0000779e2340.html%3Fsite
edition%3Dintl&siteedition=intl&_i_referer=#axzz1l2VhnlN0 [accessed 13 February
2014].
38
Shannon V (2006) The end user: Junk payout in spam case Technology International
Herald Tribune. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/technology/12iht-
PTEND13.1523942.html [accessed 13 February 2014].
39
In computer networking, peering is a voluntary interconnection of administratively separate
Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the customers of each
network. The pure definition of peering is settlement-free or sender keeps all, meaning that
neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic; instead, each derives revenue from its
own customers. Peering requires physical interconnection of the networks, an exchange of
80
routing information through the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing protocol and is
often accompanied by peering agreements of varying formality, from handshake to thick
contracts. (Source: Wikipedia).
40
Tier 2 Internet Bandwidth Providers are usually called ICP (Internet connection points) or
Internet gateways.
41
Two related cases were mentioned in Spaink K (2002) Freedom of the Internet, our new
challenge. Available at http://www.spaink.net/english/osce_internetfreedom.html
[accessed 13 February 2014]. In the first case, legal action was launched against a web
page with questionable Nazi content hosted by Flashback in Sweden. The courts decided
that the page did not violate Swedish anti-Nazi laws. Nevertheless, one committed anti-
Nazi activist mounted a strong campaign against Flashback, thereby putting pressure
on Flashbacks ISP, Air2Net, and the main backbone operator MCI/WorldCom. Under
pressure from this campaign, MCI/WorldCom decided to disconnect Flashback in spite
of a lack of any legal basis for doing so. Flashbacks attempts to find an alternative provider
were unsuccessful, since most of them were also connected through the backbone operated
by MCI/WorldCom. The second case took place in the Netherlands. A small Dutch ISP
provider, Xtended Internet, was disconnected by its US-based upstream provider under
pressure from the Scientology lobby.
42
Signal transmission technologies both for wireless (like LTE) and optical cables (like
DWDM) promise to solve the bandwidth exhaustion problem with much greater
bandwidth specifications (up to terabits per second). The demand-supply run, however, is
perpetual.
43
Cisco (no date) The Internet of Things. Available at http://www.cisco.com/web/solutions/
trends/iot/overview.html [accessed 10 August 2014].
44
The Economist (2009) America insists on net neutrality: The rights of bits. 24 September.
Available at http://www.economist.com/node/14517422 [accessed 13 February 2014].
45
Full text of a Verizon and Google Legislative Framework Proposal for an Open Internet
is available at http://www.google.com/googleblogs/pdfs/verizon_google_legislative_
framework_proposal_081010.pdf [accessed 13 February 2014].
46
McMillan R (2014) What everyone gets wrong in the debate over net neutrality. Available
at http://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/ [accessed 10 August 2014].
47
The bandwidth (bit rate) agreed to in a contract with the ISP is, in fact, only the maximum
available rather than a guaranteed effective speed.
48
Ogg E (2010) Report: Google, Verizon reach Net neutrality deal. Available at http://news.
cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20012703-260.html?tag=mncol;mlt_related [accessed 13
February 2014].
49
McCullagh D (2012) European ISPs defend U.N. Internet tax. Available at http://news.
cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57496581-38/european-isps-defend-u.n-internet-tax/
50
Those elements that are still controversial and to be negotiated about in future are in square
brackets.
81
Internet Governance
51
Radunovic V (2012) Network Neutrality in law a step forwards or a step backwards?
Diplo Blog. Available at http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/network-neutrality-law-
%E2%80%93-step-forwards-or-step-backwards [accessed 13 February 2014].
52
FCC (2005) Policy statement. Available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf [accessed 13 February 2014].
53
Kroes N (2010) Net neutrality in Europe. Speech given by Vice President of the European
Commission Commissioner for the Digital Agenda. Available at http://europa.eu/rapid/
press-release_SPEECH-10-153_en.htm?locale=en [accessed 13 February 2014].
54
La Quadrature du Net (2014) Net neutrality: a great step forward for the free Internet.
Available at http://www.laquadrature.net/en/net-neutrality-a-great-step-forward-for-
the-free-internet [accessed 11 August 2014].
55
English version of the Brazilian Marco Civil is available at http://giplatform.org/
resources/text-brazils-new-marco-civil [accessed 10 August 2014].
56
TechnoLlama (2012) Chile enforces net neutrality for the first time, sort of. Available at
http://www.technollama.co.uk/chile-enforces-net-neutrality-for-the-first-time-sort-
of [accessed 13 February 2014].
57
Integral text of the 2010 Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on network neutrality
of Council of Europe is available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1678287
58
ISOC considers the concept of network neutrality as rather ill-defined, and instead
discusses the continued open inter-networking. Available at http://www.internetsociety.
org/articles/internet-society-publishes-statement-open-inter-networking [accessed
13 February 2014]. Its 16 May 2010 Public consultation on Net Neutrality states: Rather
than focusing simply on the range of possible Network Neutrality definitions, the Internet Society
believes it is more appropriate to concentrate more broadly on the imperative of preserving the
open, user-centric Internet model that has been so successful to date.
59
TACD (no date) TACD calls for Net Neutrality. Available at http://tacd.
org/?option=com_content&task=view&id=162&Itemid=43 [accessed 13 February
2014].
60
Radunovic V (2012) Can free choice hurt open Internet markets? Diplo Blog. Available
at http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/can-free-choice-hurt-open-internet-markets
61
Chetan Sharma lists some interesting opportunities for cooperation between OTT and
mobile operators, like analysing real-time network conditions, sharing user behaviour info,
location and presence (within limits of privacy regulations), or third-party services billing
through mobile subscription. Available at http://synergy.syniverse.com/2012/05/mobile-
operators-and-otts-building-a-win-win-partnership/ [accessed 13 February 2014].
62
ACLU White Paper (2005) No competition: How monopoly control of the broadband
Internet threatens free speech. ACLU: New York, NY, USA. Available at https://www.
aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/monopoly-control-broadband-internet-threatens-
free-speech [accessed 13 February 2014].
82
63
Global Cybersecurity Agenda (no date). Available at http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/
cybersecurity/gca/ [accessed 13 February 2014].
64
ITU (2012) WCIT-12 Final Acts. Available at http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/
Documents/final-acts-wcit-12.pdf [accessed 10 August 2014].
65
CCI (no date) Commonwealth Cybercrime Initiative. Available at http://www.
commonwealthcybercrimeinitiative.org/ [accessed 11 August 2014].
66
Council of Europe (2001) Convention on Cybercrime. Available at http://conventions.
coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/185.htm [accessed 13 February 2014].
67
UN report A/65/201 Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of
Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security. Available
at http://www.unidir.org/files/medias/pdfs/final-report-eng-0-189.pdf [accessed 10
August 2014].
68
CCDCOE (2013) The Tallinn Manual. Available at http://www.ccdcoe.org/tallinn-
manual.html [accessed 10 August 2014].
69
Sofaer AD et al. (2000) Proposal for an international convention on cybercrime. Available
at http://www.iwar.org.uk/law/resources/cybercrime/stanford/cisac-draft.htm
70
DNSSEC explained. Available at http://everything.explained.at/DNSSEC/ [accessed 13
February 2014].
71
For an overview of current status and challenges in DNSSEC deployment see Marsan C
(2012) Will 2012 be the dawn of DNSSEC? 18 January 2012 Networkworld. Available
at http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/011812-dnssec-outlook-255033.html
72
Radunovic V (2013) Waging a (private) cyber war. Available at http://www.diplomacy.
edu/blog/waging-private-cyberwar [accessed 10 August 2014].
73
Perlroth N and Gellese D (2014) Russian gang said to amass more than a billion stolen
Internet credentials. New York Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/
technology/russian-gang-said-to-amass-more-than-a-billion-stolen-internet-
credentials.html?_r=0 [accessed 10 August 2014].
74
Brazil and the EU have pushed forward their dialogue on developing a direct submarine
link. Available at http://rt.com/news/brazil-eu-cable-spying-504/ [accessed 10 August
2014].
75
Keck Z (2014) China expands cyber spying. Available at http://thediplomat.
com/2014/04/china-expands-cyber-spying/ [accessed 10 August 2014].
76
Ranger S (2014) Were the real hacking victims, says China. Available at http://www.
zdnet.com/were-the-real-hacking-victims-says-china-7000029666/ [accessed 10
August 2014].
77
Schneier B (2013) NSA surveillance: A guide to staying secure. Available at www.
theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-how-to-remain-secure-surveillance [accessed
12 August 2014].
83
Internet Governance
78
EU Commission (2013) Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union: An Open, Safe
and Secure Cyberspace. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/
eu-cybersecurity-plan-protect-open-internet-and-online-freedom-and-opportunity-
cyber-security [accessed 12 August 2014].
79
The Wassenaar Arrangement. Available at http://www.wassenaar.org/ [accessed 13
February 2014].
80
The Clipper approach was proposed by the US government back in 1993. At its core
was the use of a Clipper chip which was supposed to be used in all telephones and other
voice communication tools. The Clipper chip had a back door which could be used by
governments for lawful surveillance. After strong opposition from human rights activists
and the general public, the US government dropped this proposal in 1995. See: Denning D
(1995) The case for clipper. MIT Technology Review. MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA. Available
at http://encryption_policies.tripod.com/us/denning_0795_clipper.htm [accessed 13
February 2014].
81
Spam stops here (2014) Global Spam Threat Report. Available at http://www.
spamstopshere.com/global-report/spam-threats-february-2014.php [accessed 11
August 2014].
82
More references to Can-Spam are available at the Bureau of Consumer Protection (2009).
The CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business. Available at http://www.business.ftc.
gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business [accessed 13 February
2014].
83
The Contact Network of Spam Enforcement Authorities (CNSA) was established in
February 2005 by 13 EU countries (France, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, the United Kingdom, and Spain). It aims
to promote both cooperation among these states and coordination with entities outside the
EU, such as the OECD and the ITU.
84
As quoted in Johnsson O (2007) Methods to combat SPAM. Available at http://home.
swipnet.se/Johnson_Consulting/images/spam1.htm [accessed 13 February 2014].
85
BBC NEWS (2004) European anti-spam laws lack bite. 28 April. Available at http://news.
bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3666585.stm [accessed 13 February 2014].
86
For more information about ITU activities related to combating spam see ITU (no date)
ITU Activities on Countering Spam. Available at http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/
84
Section 3
The legal basket

Internet Governance
86
The legal basket
The legal basket
A
lmost every aspect of Internet governance includes a legal component,
yet the shaping of a legal framework to mould the rapid development
of the Internet is in its early phase. The two prevalent approaches are:
1 A real-law approach, where the Internet is essentially treated no

differently from previous telecommunication technologies, in the long
evolution from smoke signals to the telephone. Through faster and more
comprehensive communication, the Internet introduces quantitative but
not qualitative changes in modern society. Consequently, any existing
legal rules can also be applied to the Internet.1
2 A cyberlaw approach, based on the presumption that the Internet
introduces new types of social relationships in cyberspace. Consequently,
there is a need to formulate new cyberlaws in order to regulate
cyberspace. One argument for this approach is that the sheer speed and
volume of Internet-facilitated cross-border communication hinders the
enforcement of existing legal rules.
The real-law approach is gaining predominance. A considerable part of
existing legislation can be applied to the Internet. For some issues such as
cybercrime real laws would have to be adapted in order to be applicable to
the cyber world.
Legal instruments
A wide variety of legal instruments exist that have either already been applied
or could be applied to Internet governance.
87
Internet Governance
Note
A frequent argument for a new regulation for cyberspace is that traditional regulation
(e.g. crime, taxation) is not efficient enough. It is important to keep in mind that laws
do not make prohibited behaviour impossible, only punishable.
National and community legal instruments
Legislation
Legislative activities have progressively intensified in the field of the Internet.
This is especially the case within EU and OECD countries, where the
Internet is widely used and has a high degree of impact on economic and
social relations. To date, the priority areas for Internet legislation have been
privacy, data protection, intellectual property, taxation, and cybercrime.
Yet, social relations are too complex to be regulated only by legislators.

Society is dynamic and legislation always lags behind societal change. This is
particularly noticeable in this day and age, when technological development
reshapes social reality much faster than legislators can follow. Sometimes,
rules become obsolete even before they come into force. The risk of legal
obsolescence is an important consideration in Internet regulation.
Social norms (customs)

Like legislation, social norms proscribe certain behaviour. Unlike legislation,
no state power enforces those norms. They are enforced by the community
through peer-to-peer pressure. In the early days of the Internet, its use was
ruled by a set of social norms labelled netiquette, where peer pressure and
exclusion were the main sanctions. During this period in which the Internet
was used primarily by relatively small, mainly academic communities, social
rules were widely observed. The growth of the Internet has made those rules
ineffective. This type of regulation can still be used, however, within restricted
groups with strong community ties. For example, the Wikipedia community
is governed by social norms regulating the way Wikipedia articles are edited
and how conflicts over articles are settled. Through codification into manuals
Wikipedia rules have been gradually evolving into self-regulation.
Self-regulation
The US governments 1998 White Paper on Internet Governance2 that
paved the way for the foundation of ICANN, proposed self-regulation as the
preferred regulatory mechanism for the Internet. Self-regulation has elements
in common with previously described social norms. The main difference is
that unlike social norms, which typically involve tacit and diffused rules,
88
The legal basket
self-regulation is based on an explicit and well-organised set of rules. Self-

regulation rules usually codify a set of rules in form or good conduct.
The trend towards self-regulation is particularly noticeable among ISPs.

In many countries, ISPs are under increasing pressure from government
authorities to enforce rules related to content policy. ISPs try to answer this
pressure through self-regulation by imposing certain standards of behaviour
for their customers.
While self-regulation can be a useful regulatory technique, some risks remain

in using it for regulating areas of high public interest, such as content policy,
freedom of expression, and protection of privacy. Can they make decisions in
lieu of legal authorities? Can ISPs judge what acceptable content is?
Jurisprudence
Jurisprudence (court decisions) is the cornerstone of the US legal system,
the first to address Internet legal issues. In this system, precedents create law,
especially in cases involving the regulation of new issues, such as the Internet.
Judges have to decide cases even if they do not have the necessary tools, i.e.,
legal rules.
The first legal tool judges use is legal analogy, where something new is related
to something familiar. Most legal cases concerning the Internet are solved
through analogies.
International legal instruments
The difference between international private law and international public law
The cross-border nature of Internet activities implies the need for the use
of international legal tools. In discussions on international law there is a
terminological confusion that could have substantive consequences. The
term international law is mainly used as a synonym for international public
law, established by nation states, usually through the adoption of treaties and
conventions. International public law applies to many areas of the Internet
including telecommunications, human rights, and cybercrime to name a
few. However, international private law is equally, if not more important,
for dealing with Internet issues, since most Internet court cases involve
issues such as contracts, torts, and commercial responsibilities. The rules
of international private law specify the criteria for establishing applicable
jurisdiction and law in legal cases with foreign elements (e.g. legal relations
involving two or more entities from different countries). For example, who
89
Internet Governance
has jurisdiction in the potential legal cases between Internet companies (e.g.
Facebook, Twitter) and their users scattered all over the world. The jurisdiction
criteria include the link between an individual and national jurisdiction (e.g.
nationality, domicile) or the link between a particular transaction and national
jurisdiction (e.g. where the contract was concluded, where the exchange of
goods took place).
International private law

Given the global nature of the Internet, legal disputes involving individuals
and institutions from different national jurisdictions are very frequent.
However, only rarely has international private law been used for settling
Internet-based issues, possibly because its procedures are usually complex,
slow, and expensive. The main mechanisms of international private law
developed at a time when cross-border interaction was less frequent and
intensive and proportionally fewer cases involved individuals and entities from
different jurisdictions.
International public law

International public law regulates relations between nation states. Some
international public law instruments already deal with areas of relevance
to Internet governance (e.g. telecommunication regulations, human rights
conventions, international trade treaties). In this section, the analysis will focus
on the elements of international public law that could be used in the field of
Internet governance, including treaties and conventions, customs, soft law, and
ius cogens (compelling law a peremptory norm).
International conventions
The main set of conventions on Internet-related issues was adopted
by the ITU, with the ITRs being the most important for preparing a
telecommunication policy framework for subsequent Internet developments.
The current version of the ITRs (1998) was amended at WCIT-12. Apart
from the ITU conventions, the only convention that deals directly with
Internet-related issues is the CoEs Cybercrime Convention. However, many
other international legal instruments address broader aspects of Internet
governance, such as human rights, trade, and intellectual property rights.
International customary law

The development of customary rules includes two elements: general practice
(consuetudo) and recognition that such practice is legally binding (opinio
juris). It usually requires a lengthy time-span for the crystallisation of general
practice.
90
The legal basket
Some elements of emerging customary law appear in the way the US

government exercises oversight of the Internet root. It has a consistent
practice of non-intervention in the issue of management of country domains
(e.g. .ch, .uk., .ge). General practice is the first element in identifying
customary law. It remains to be seen if such general practice was based on the
awareness of the US government that its management of country domains has
been in line with international legal rules (existence of opinio iuris). If this is
the case, there is the possibility of identifying international customary law in
managing parts of the Internet root server system that deal with the country
domains. It would be difficult to extend such reasoning to the legal status of
gTLDs (.com, .org, .edu, .net), which do not involve other countries.
Soft law
Soft law has become a frequently used term in the Internet governance
debate. Most definitions of soft law focus on what it is not: it is not a legally
binding instrument. Typically, soft law instruments contain principles and
norms rather than specific rules which are usually found in international
documents such as declarations and resolutions. Since it is not legally binding,
it cannot be enforced through international courts or other dispute resolution
mechanisms.
The main WSIS documents, including the Final Declaration, the Plan of
Action, and Regional Declarations, have the potential to develop certain soft
law norms. They are not legally binding, but they are usually the result of
prolonged negotiations and acceptance by nation states. The commitment that
nation states and other stakeholders put into negotiating soft law instruments
and reaching a necessary consensus creates the first element in considering
that such documents are more than simple political declarations.
Soft law provides certain advantages in addressing Internet governance issues.

First, it is a less formal approach, not requiring ratification by states and,
thereby, not requiring prolonged negotiations. Second, it is flexible enough to
facilitate the testing of new approaches and adjustment to rapid developments
in the field of Internet governance. Third, soft law provides greater
opportunity for a multistakeholder approach than does an international legal
approach restricted to states and international organisations.
Ius cogens
Ius cogens is described by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties3 in
Article 53 as a norm, accepted and recognised by the international community
of States as a whole, from which no derogation is permitted and which can be
modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the
91
Internet Governance
same character. Professor Brownlie lists the following examples of ius cogens
rules:
P The prohibition of the use of force.
P The law of genocide.
P The principle of racial non-discrimination.
P Crimes against humanity.
P The rules prohibiting trade in slaves and piracy.4
In Internet governance, ius cogens could be used for activities that promote
some of these rules (e.g. genocide, racial discrimination, slavery).
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the authority of the court and state organs to decide on

legal cases. The relationship between jurisdiction and the Internet has been
ambiguous, since jurisdiction rests predominantly on the geographical division
of the globe into national territories. Each state has the sovereign right
to exercise jurisdiction over its territory. However, the Internet facilitates
considerable cross-border exchange, difficult (although not impossible) to
monitor via traditional government mechanisms. The question of jurisdiction
on the Internet highlights one of the central dilemmas associated with
Internet governance: how is it possible to anchor the Internet within existing
legal and political geography?5
Jurisdiction basic techniques

Three main considerations are important when deciding on jurisdiction:
P Which court or state authority has the proper authority? (procedural
jurisdiction)
P Which rules should apply? (substantive jurisdiction)
P How to implement court decisions. (enforcement jurisdiction)
The following criteria establish jurisdiction in particular cases:

P Territorial Principle the right of the state to rule over persons and
property within its territory.
P Personality Principle the right of the state to rule over its citizens
wherever they might be (nationality principle).
92
The legal basket
P Effects Principle the right of the state to rule on economic and legal
effects on its territory, stemming from activities conducted abroad.
Another important principle introduced by modern international law is that
of universal jurisdiction.6 The concept of universal jurisdiction in its broad
sense [is] the power of a state to punish certain crimes, wherever and by
whomsoever they have been committed, without any required connection to
territory, nationality, or special state interest. 7 Universal jurisdiction covers
such crimes as piracy, war crimes, and genocide.
Conflict of jurisdiction
The conflict of jurisdiction arises when more than one state claims jurisdiction
on a particular legal case. It usually happens when a legal case involves an
extra-territorial component (e.g. involves individuals from different states, or
international transactions). The relevant jurisdiction is established by one of
the following elements: territoriality, nationality, or effect of action). When
placing content or interacting on the Internet, it is difficult to know which
national law, if any, might be violated. In this context, almost every Internet
activity has an international aspect that could lead to multiple jurisdictions or
a so-called spill-over effect.8
One of the early and frequently quoted cases that exemplify the problem of
multiple jurisdictions is the 2001 Yahoo! case in France.9 It was prompted by a
breach of French law, which prohibits the exhibition and sale of Nazi objects,
even though the website that provided these items the Yahoo.com auction
website was hosted in the USA, where the display of such materials was, and
still is, legal. The court case was solved through the use of a technical solution
(geo-location software and filtering of access). Yahoo! was forced to identify
users who accessed the site from France and block their access to the web
pages showcasing Nazi materials.10
Besides technical solutions (geo-location and filtering), other approaches for

solving the conflict of jurisdiction include the harmonisation of national laws
and the use of arbitration.
The harmonisation of national laws

The harmonisation of national laws could result in the establishment of
one set of equivalent rules at global level. With identical rules in place, the
question of jurisdiction would become less
relevant. Harmonisation might be achieved in See Section 2 for further
discussion on cybersecurity
areas where a high level of global consensus
and spam
already exists, for example, regarding child
93
Internet Governance
pornography, piracy, slavery, and terrorism. Views are converging on other

issues, too, such as cybercrime. However, in some fields, including content
policy, it is not very likely that a global consensus on the basic rules will be
reached, since cultural differences continue to clash in the online environment
more saliently than in the offline world.11 Another potential consequence of
a lack of harmonisation is the migration of Web materials to countries with
lower levels of Internet regulation. Using the analogy of the Law of the Sea,
some countries might become flags of convenience or the offshore centres of
the Internet world.
Arbitration
Arbitration is a dispute resolution mechanism available in place of traditional
courts. In arbitrations, decisions are made by one or more independent
individuals chosen by the disputants. International arbitration within the
business sector has a long-standing tradition. An arbitration mechanism is
usually set out in a private contract with parties agreeing to settle any future
disputes through arbitration. A wide variety of arbitration contracts are
available, specifying such issues as place of arbitration, procedures, and choice
of law.
Table 2 presents a short overview of the main differences between traditional

court systems and arbitration.
Table 2
Elements Court jurisdiction Arbitration
Organisation Settled by laws/treaties permanent Settled by parties (temporary, ad hoc)

Settled by conventions (permanent)
Applicable law The law of the court (the judge Parties can choose the law; if they do not,
decides the applicable law) then the law indicated in the contract; if
there is no indication, then the law of the
arbitration body
Procedure Court procedures settled by laws/ Settled by parties (temporary, ad hoc)

treaties. Settled by arbitration body regulation
(permanent)
Competence/ Settled by laws/treaties

Object of dispute in relation with the object of dispute Settled by parties
Decision Binding Binding
94
The legal basket
In comparison to traditional courts, arbitration offers many advantages,

including higher flexibility, lower expenses, speed, choice of jurisdiction,
and the easier enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. One of the main
advantages of arbitration is that it overcomes the potential conflict of
jurisdiction. Arbitration has particular advantages in regard to one of the
most difficult tasks in Internet-related court cases, enforcement of decisions
(awards). The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Awards12 regulates the enforcement of arbitration
awards. According to this convention, national courts are obliged to enforce
arbitration awards. Paradoxically, it is often easier to enforce arbitration
awards in foreign countries by using the New York Convention regime rather
than to enforce foreign court judgement.
The main limitation of arbitration is that it cannot address issues of higher

public interest such as protection of human rights; these require the
intervention of state-established courts.
Arbitration has been used extensively in commercial disputes. There is a well-

developed system of rules and institutions dealing with commercial disputes.
The main international instrument is the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) 1985 Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration.13 The leading international arbitrations are usually
attached to chambers of commerce.
Arbitration and the Internet

Arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution systems are used
extensively to fill the gap engendered by the inability of current international
private law to deal with Internet cases. A particular example of an alternative
dispute resolution method in Internet cases is the Universal Domain-Name
Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), which was developed by WIPO and
implemented by ICANN as the primary dispute resolution procedure. Since
the beginning of its work under UDRP in December 1999, the WIPO
Arbitration and Mediation Center has administered more than 22,500
cases and with the introduction of new gTLDs, new challenges are expected
to occur.14
The UDRP is stipulated in advance as a dispute resolution mechanism in

all contracts involving the registration of gTLDs (e.g. .com, .edu, .org, .net)
and for some ccTLDs as well. Its unique aspect is that arbitration awards
are applied directly through changes in the DNS without resorting to
enforcement through national courts.
95
Internet Governance
Arbitration provides a faster, simpler, and cheaper way of settling disputes.

However, the use of arbitration as the main Internet dispute settlement
mechanism has a few serious limitations.
P First, since arbitration is usually established by prior agreement, it does
not cover a wide area of issues when no agreement between parties has
been set in advance (libel, various types of responsibilities, cybercrime).
P Second, many view the current practice of attaching an arbitration clause
to regular contracts disadvantageous for the weaker side in the contract
(usually an Internet user or an e-commerce customer).
P Third, some are concerned that arbitration extends precedent-based law
(US/UK legal system) globally and gradually suppresses other national
legal systems. In the case of e-commerce, this might prove to be more
acceptable, given the already high level of unification of substantive rules
of commercial law. However, an extension of
precedent law has become more delicate in
See Section 1 for
sociocultural issues such as Internet content,
further discussion
where a national legal system reflects specific
on the DNS
cultural context.
Intellectual property rights (IPR)
Knowledge and ideas are key resources in the global economy. The protection
of knowledge and ideas, through IPR, has become one of the predominant
issues in the Internet governance debate, and has a strong development-
oriented component. IPR have been affected by the development of the
Internet, mainly through the digitisation of knowledge and information, as
well as through new possibilities for their manipulation. Internet-related IPR
include copyright, trademarks, and patents. Other IPR include designs, utility
models, trade secrets, geographical indications, and plant varieties.
Copyright
Copyright only protects the expression of an idea when it is materialised
in various forms, such as a book, CD, or computer file. The idea itself is not
protected by copyright. In practice, it is sometimes difficult to make a clear
distinction between the idea and its expression.
The copyright regime has closely followed the technological evolution. Every
new invention, such as the printing press, radio, television, and the VCR, has
affected both the form and the application of copyright rules. The Internet
96
The legal basket
is no exception. The traditional concept of copyright has been challenged in

numerous ways, from those as simple as cutting and pasting texts from the
Web to more complex activities, such as the massive distribution of music and
video materials via the Internet.
The Internet also empowers copyright holders, by providing them with more
powerful technical tools for protecting and monitoring the use of copyrighted
material. These developments endanger the delicate balance between authors
rights and the publics interest, which is the very basis of the copyright law.
So far, copyright holders, represented by major record and multimedia

companies, have been very active in protecting their IPR. The public interest
has been vaguely perceived and not sufficiently protected. This, however, has
gradually been changing, mainly through numerous global initiatives focusing
on the open access to knowledge and information (e.g. Creative Commons).
Stricter copyright protection at national and international level

The recording and entertainment industries have been lobbying intensively
at national and international level to strengthen copyright protection. In
the USA, stricter protection of copyright was introduced through the US
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. At international level,
the protection of digital artefacts was introduced in the WIPO Copyright
Treaty (1996). This treaty also contains provisions for tightening the copyright
protection regime, such as stricter provisions for the limitations of authors
exclusive rights, the prohibition of circumventing the technological protection
of copyrights, and other related measures.
Several regulations have been enacted at national and international level,

aiming to enforce a tighter control by forcing Internet intermediaries to
filter or monitor the dissemination of copyrighted content. They triggered
strong public protest, which stopped adption of these regulations. In 2011, in
the USA, two bills were promoted the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)15
and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)16 which provide for new means to
fight against online piracy, including blocking access to infringing websites
and banning search engines to link to such sites. At international level,
an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)17 tried to address IPR
infringements in a way that might open the possibility for private (companies)
enforcement and policing actions. After strong protests in Europe, the
European Parliament voted against ACTA.
97
Internet Governance
Figure 13
These regulatory actions have been harshly criticised by academics and civil
liberties groups on human rights and freedoms grounds. Individual Internet
users have joined online and offline protests.18
Software against copyright infringement

Tools that are used by offenders can be used by defenders, too. Traditionally,
state authorities and businesses carried out their responsibilities through
legal mechanisms. However, the use of alternative software tools by the
business sector against copyright offenders is increasing.
98
The legal basket
An article in the New York Times listed the following software-based tactics,
used by recording/entertainment companies to protect their copyrights:
P A Trojan Horse redirects users to websites where they can legitimately
buy the song they tried to download.
P Freeze software blocks computers for a period of time and displays a
warning about downloading pirated music.
P Silence, where hard disks are scanned and an attempt is made to remove
any pirated files found.
P Interdiction prevents access to the Net for those who try to download
pirated music.
Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School, has warned that such
measures might be illegal.19 Would the companies that took such self-help
measures be breaking the law?
Technologies for digital rights management

As a long-term and more structural approach, the business sector introduced
various technologies for managing access to copyright-protected materials.
Microsoft introduced digital rights management software to manage the
downloading of sound files, movies, and other copyrighted materials. Similar
systems were developed by Xerox (ContentGuard), Philips, and Sony
(InterTrust).
The use of technological tools for copyright protection find legal basis in
the WIPO Copyright Treaty and in the DMCA. Moreover, the DMCA
criminalises activity that is aimed at circumventing the technological protection
of copyrighted materials.
The issues
Amend existing or develop new copyright mechanisms?

How should copyright mechanisms be adjusted to reflect the profound
changes effected by ICT and Internet developments? One answer suggested
by the US governments White Paper on Intellectual Property and the
National Information Infrastructure20 is that only minor changes are needed
in existing regulation, mainly through dematerialising the copyright concepts
of fixation, distribution, transmission, and publication. This approach was
followed in the main international copyright treaties, including the Trade-
Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) convention and the
WIPO Copyright Treaty.
99
Internet Governance
However, the opposite view argues that changes in the legal system must be
profound, since copyright in the digital era no longer refers to the right to
prevent copying but also to the right to prevent access. Ultimately, with ever-
greater technical possibilities of restricting access to digital materials, one can
question whether copyright protection is necessary at all. It remains to be seen
how the public interest, the second part of the copyright equation, will be
protected.
Protection of the public interest the fair use of copyright materials

Copyright was initially designed to encourage creativity and invention. This
is why it combined two elements: the protection of authors rights and the
protection of the public interest. The main challenge was to stipulate how
the public can access copyrighted materials in order to enhance creativity,
knowledge, and global well-being. Operationally speaking, the protection of
the public interest is ensured through the concept of the fair use of protected
materials.21
Copyright and development

Any restriction of fair use could weaken the position of developing countries.
The Internet provides researchers, students, and others from developing
countries with a powerful tool for participating in global academic and
scientific exchanges. A restrictive copyright regime could have a negative
impact on capacity building in developing countries. Another aspect is the
increasing digitisation of cultural and artistic crafts from developing countries.
Paradoxically, developing countries may end up having to pay for their cultural
and artistic heritage when it is digitised, repackaged, and owned by foreign
entertainment and media companies.
WIPO and TRIPS

Two main international regimes exist for intellectual property rights. WIPO
manages the IPR regime, based on the Bern and Paris conventions. Another
emerging regime is run by the WTO and based on TRIPS. The shift of
international IPR coordination from WIPO to the WTO was carried out in
order to strengthen IPR protection, especially in the field of enforcement. This
was one of the major gains of the developed countries during the Uruguay
Round of the WTO negotiations.
Many developing countries are concerned with this development. The WTOs
strict enforcement mechanisms could reduce the manoeuvring room of
developing countries and the possibility of balancing development needs with
the protection of international intellectual property rights. So far, the main
focus of the WTO and TRIPS has been on various interpretations of IPR for
100
The legal basket
pharmaceutical products. It is very likely that future discussions will extend to

IPR and the Internet.
ISPs liability for copyright infringement

The international enforcement mechanisms in the field of intellectual property
have been further strengthened by making ISPs liable for hosting materials
in breach of copyright, if the material is not removed upon notification
of infringement. This has made the previously vague IPR regime directly
enforceable in the field of the Internet.
The approach taken by the US DMCA and the EU directives22 is to exempt

the service provider from liability for the information transmitted or stored
at the direction of the users and demand that the service provider act upon a
Notice and Take Down procedure.23 This solution provides some comfort to
ISPs as they are safe from legal sanctions, but also potentially transforms them
into content judges24 and only partially solves the problem, since the contested
content may be posted on another website, hosted by another ISP.
A particularly relevant case to the future of copyright on the Internet is the case
against Grokster and StreamCast, two companies that produce P2P file-sharing
software. Following DMCA provisions, the Recording Industry Association of
America (RIAA) requested these companies to desist from the development
of file-sharing technology that contributes to the infringement of copyrights.
Initially, the US courts chose not to hold software companies like Grokster and
StreamCast responsible for possible copyright infringement, under reasonable
circumstances. However, in June 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled that
software developers were responsible for any possible misuse of their software.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) noted this case as a prelude to the
wave of lawsuits that followed over the next few years against individuals and
ISPs reaching over 30,000 cases by 2008.25 Although the RIAA abandoned its
litigation campaign, copyright infringement lawsuits still remain in the spotlight
and diversify at the same pace with technological developments.26
Trademarks
Trademarks are relevant to the Internet because of the registration of domain

names. In the early phase of Internet development, the registration of domain
names was based on a first come, first served basis. This led to cybersquatting,
the practice of registering names of companies and selling them later at a
higher price.
101
Internet Governance
This situation compelled the business sector to place the question of the
protection of trademarks at the centre of the reform of Internet governance,
leading to the establishment of ICANN in 1998. In the White Paper on
the creation of ICANN, the US government demanded that ICANN
develop and implement a mechanism for the protection of trademarks in
the field of domain names. Soon after its formation, ICANN introduced the
WIPOdeveloped Universal Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP).27
Patents
Traditionally, a patent protects a new process or product of a mainly technical

or production nature. Only recently have patents started being granted for
software. More patent registrations result in more court cases among US
software companies, involving huge amounts of money. Some patents have
been granted for business processes, and some of these were controversial,
such as British Telecoms request for licence fees for the patent on hypertext
links, which it registered in the 1980s. In August 2002, the case was
dismissed.28 If British Telecom had won this case, Internet users would have to
pay a fee for each hypertext link created or used. It is important to stress that
the practice of granting patents to software and Internet-related procedures
has not been accepted in Europe and other regions.29
Cybercrime
A dichotomy between real law and cyberlaw exists in the discussion of

cybercrime. The real-law approach stresses that cybercrime is the same as an
offline crime, but is committed using a computer that is most likely connected
to the Internet. The crime is the same, only the tools are different. The
cyberlaw approach stresses that the unique elements of cybercrime warrant
special treatment, especially when it comes to enforcement and prevention.
The drafters of the CoE Convention on Cybercrime30 were closer to the real-
law approach, stressing that the only specific aspect of cybercrime is the use
of ICT as a means of committing crime. The convention, which entered into
force on 1 July 2004, is the main international instrument in this field.
Nevertheless, the prominence of the cybercrime topic put it on the agenda of

several international, regional, and local organisations, due to the continuous
102
The legal basket
occurrence and diversification of crimes committed in relation to or by using

electronic networking systems.31 One of the most recent initiatives worth
noting is the Commonwealth Cybercrime Initiative32 that was born within
the Commonwealth Internet Governance Forum (CIGF). The business sector
has also recognised the importance of fighting cybercrime and has started
private initiatives to support awareness campaigns and improvement of legal
provisions.33
The issues
Definition of cybercrime
The definition of cybercrime has practical relevance and legal implications.
If the focus is on offences committed against computer systems, cybercrime
would include unauthorised access; damage to computer data or programs;
sabotage to hinder the functioning of a computer system or network;
unauthorised interception of data to, from, or within a system or network;
as well as computer espionage. A definition of cybercrime as all crimes
committed via the Internet and computer systems would include a broader
range of crimes, including those specified in the Cybercrime Convention:
computer-related fraud, infringements of copyright, child pornography, and
network security.
Cybercrime and the protection of human rights

The Convention on Cybercrime reinforced the discussion about the balance
between security and human rights. Many concerns have arisen, articulated
primarily by civil society, that the convention provides state authorities
with too broad a power, including the right to check hackers computers,
the surveillance of communication, and more. These broad powers could
potentially endanger some human rights, particularly privacy and freedom of
expression.34 The Convention on Cybercrime was adopted by the CoE, one of
the most active promoters of human rights. This may help in establishing the
necessary balance between the fight against cybercrime and the protection of
human rights.
Gathering and preserving evidence

One of the main challenges in fighting cybercrime is gathering evidence
for court cases. The speed of todays communication requires a fast response
from law-enforcement agencies. One possibility for preserving evidence
is to be found in the network logs, which provide information about who
accessed particular Internet resources, and when they did so. The Convention
on Cybercrime specifies the obligation to provide for procedures to preserve
103
Internet Governance
Internet traffic data. Under the growing pressure of cyberthreats and

terrorist attacks, the EU took a step further and adopted the Data Retention
Directive35 that requires ISPs to retain traffic and location data for the
purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime, as
defined by each member state in its national law (Article 1). This provision
faced strong criticism on privacy grounds and several states have either failed
to enact national legislation to comply with the directive or have had such
laws annulled as unconstitutional.36
In December 2013, the European Court of Justice Advocate General declared

the Data Retention Directive incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental
Rights.
Labour law
It is frequently mentioned that the Internet is changing the way in which we

work. While this phenomenon requires broader elaboration, the following
aspects are of direct relevance to Internet governance:
P The Internet introduced a high level of temporary and short-term
workers. The term permatemp was coined for employees who are kept for
long periods on regularly reviewed short-term contracts. This introduces a
lower level of social protection of the workforce.
P Teleworking is becoming increasingly relevant with the further
development of telecommunications, especially with broadband access to
the Internet.
P Outsourcing to other countries in the ICT service sector, such as call
centres and data processing units, is on the rise. A considerable number of
these activities have already been transferred to low-cost countries, mainly
in Asia and Latin America.
ICT has blurred the traditional routine of work, free time, and sleep (8+8+8
hours), especially in multinational corporation working environment. It is
increasingly difficult to distinguish where work starts and where it ends. These
changes in working patterns may require new labour legislation, addressing such
issues as working hours, the protection of labour interests, and remuneration.
In the field of labour law, one important issue is the question of privacy in the
workplace. Is an employer allowed to monitor employees use of the Internet
(such as the content of e-mail messages or website access)? Jurisprudence is
gradually developing in this field, with a variety of new solutions on offer.
104
The legal basket
In France, Portugal, and Great Britain, legal

guidelines and a few cases have tended
to restrict the surveillance of employee
e-mail.37 The employer must provide prior
notice of any monitoring activities. In
Denmark, courts considered a case involving
an employees dismissal for sending private
e-mails and accessing a sexually oriented
chat website. The court ruled that dismissal Figure 14
was not lawful since the employer did
not have an Internet use policy in place banning the unofficial use of the
Internet. Another rationale applied by the Danish court was the fact that the
employees use of the Internet did not affect his working performance.
An additional point of concern arising with the ever-growing use of social

networking is the delimitation between private and working life. Recent
cases38 showed that employees behaviour and comments on social networking
sites may address various topics, from workplace and co-workers to employers
strategies and products, deemed as personal (and private) opinions, but
which may considerably affect the image and reputation of companies and
colleagues.
Labour law has traditionally been a national issue. However, globalisation in

general and the Internet in particular have led to the internationalisation of
labour issues. With an increasing number of individuals working for foreign
entities and interacting with work teams on a global basis, an increasing
need arises for appropriate international regulatory mechanisms. This aspect
was recognised in the WSIS declaration, which, in paragraph 47, calls for
the respect of all relevant international norms in the field of the ICT labour
market.
Privacy and data protection39
Privacy and data protection are two interrelated Internet governance issues.
Data protection is a legal mechanism that ensures privacy. Yet, what is privacy?
It is usually defined as the right of any citizen to control their own personal
information and to decide about it (to disclose information or not). Privacy is
a fundamental human right. It is recognised in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights,40 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,41
and in many other international and regional human rights conventions.
105
Internet Governance
National cultures and the way of life influence the practice of privacy.
Although this issue is important in Western societies, it may have lesser
importance in other cultures. Modern practices of privacy focus on
communication privacy (no surveillance of communication) and information
privacy (no handling of information about individuals). Privacy issues, which
used to focus on governmental activities, have been extended and now include
the business sector.42
The issues
The main privacy issues are analysed in a triangle among individuals, states,
and businesses as presented in Figure 15.
Individuals and states

Information has always been an essential tool for states to exercise authority
over their territories and populations. Governments collect vast amounts of
personal information (birth and marriage records, social security numbers,
voting registration, criminal records, tax information, housing records, car
ownership, etc.). It is not possible for an individual to opt out of providing
personal data, short of emigrating to another country, where they would
confront the same problem. Information technology, such as that used
in data mining,43 aids in the aggregation and correlation of data from
many specialised systems (e.g. taxation, housing records, car ownership) to
conduct sophisticated analyses, searching for usual and unusual patterns
and inconsistencies. One of the main challenges of e-government initiatives
is to ensure a proper balance between the modernisation of government
functions and the guarantee of citizens privacy rights, including restricting
the collection of information to what is strictly necessary to perform the
governments role or the public service. However, recent years have witnessed
an increased appetite of governments for collecting and association of more
personal data for compulsory identification (such as biometric data).
After the events of 11 September 2001 in the USA, the US Patriot Act44
and comparable legislation in other countries broadened governments
authority to collect information, including a provision for lawful interception
of information. The concept of lawful interception in gathering evidence is
also included in the CoE Convention on Cybercrime45 (Articles 20 and 21).
Moreover, the EU requested the adoption of national legislation allowing the
retention of data necessary to identify a user for a period of 6 to 24 months.
Privacy protection: individuals and businesses

As depicted in the privacy triangle image, the second, and increasingly
important relationship is that between individuals and the business sector. A
106
The legal basket
person discloses personal data when opening a bank account, booking a flight
or a hotel, paying online with a credit card, or even browsing or searching the
Internet. Multiple traces of data are often left in each of these activities.
The success and sustainability of electronic commerce, both business-to-

customer and business-to-business, depend on the establishment of extensive
trust in both business privacy policies and the security measures they establish
to protect clients confidential information from theft and misuse.46 With the
expansion of social networking platforms (e.g. Facebook, Twitter), concerns
arise over the eventual misuse of personal data not only by the owner or
administrator of a social networking platform, but also by other individuals
participating in it. 47
In an information economy, data about customers, including their preferences

and purchase profiles, becomes an important market commodity. For some
companies, such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon, information about
customers preferences constitutes a cornerstone of their business model.
Basically the currency that users pay for (online) services rendered for free
is personal data, whether in a form of a browser cookie indicating their
online behaviour or a specific information requested in filling in a webform
or making a payment. And with the increased amount of information users
reveal about themselves, the privacy violations become as frequent and more
sophisticated.48
Figure 15
107
Internet Governance
Privacy protection: states and businesses

The third side of the privacy triangle is the least publicised, yet perhaps the
most significant privacy issue. Both states and businesses collect considerable
amounts of data about individuals. Some of this data is exchanged with
other states and businesses to impede terrorist activities. However, in some
situations, such as those to which the European Directive on Data Protection
applies, the state supervises and protects data about individuals held by
businesses.
Privacy protection: individuals and individuals

The last aspect of privacy protection, not represented within the privacy
triangle, is the potential risk to privacy coming from individuals. Today, any
person with sufficient funds may own powerful surveillance tools. Even
a simple mobile phone equipped with a camera can become such a tool.
Technology has democratised surveillance to quote The Economist.49 Many
instances of the invasion of privacy have occurred, from simple voyeurism to
the sophisticated use of cameras for recording card numbers in banks and for
economic espionage.
The main problem for protection from this type of privacy violation is that most
legislation focuses on the privacy risks stemming from the state. Faced with this
new reality, a few governments have taken some initial steps. The US Congress
adopted the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act,50 prohibiting the taking of
photos of unclothed people without their approval. Germany and a few other
countries have adopted similar privacy laws, preventing individual surveillance.
The international regulation of privacy and data protection
One of the main international instruments on privacy and data protection

is the CoE Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to
Automatic Processing of Personal Data51 of 1981. Although it was adopted
by the regional organisation (CoE), it is open for accession by non-European
states. Since the Convention is technology neutral, it has withstood the test of
time.
The EU Data Protection Directive52 (Directive 45/46/EC) has also formed an

important legislative framework for the processing of personal data in the EU
and has had a vast impact on the development of national legislation not only
in Europe but also globally. This regulation has also entered a reform process
in order to cope with the new developments and to ensure an effective privacy
protection in the current technological environment.53
108
The legal basket
Another key international non-binding document on privacy and data

protection is that of the OECD Guidelines on Protection of Privacy and
Transborder Flows of Personal Data54 from 1980. These guidelines and the
OECDs subsequent work have inspired many international, regional, and
national regulations on privacy and data protection. Today, virtually all OECD
countries have enacted privacy laws and empowered authorities to enforce
those laws.
While the principles of the OECD guidelines have been widely accepted,
the main difference is in the way they are implemented, notably between
the European and US approaches. In Europe there is comprehensive data
protection legislation, while in the USA the privacy regulation is developed
for each sector of the economy including financial privacy (the Graham-
Leach-Bliley Act55), childrens privacy (the Childrens Online Privacy
Protection Act56) and medical privacy (under the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act). 57
Another major difference is that, in Europe, privacy legislation is enforced

by public authorities, while in the USA enforcement principally rests on the
private sector and self-regulation. Businesses set privacy policies. It is up
to companies and individuals to decide about privacy policies themselves.
The main criticism of the US approach is that individuals are placed in a
comparatively weak position as they are seldom aware of the importance of
options offered by privacy policies and commonly agree to them without
informing themselves.
Safe Harbor Agreement between the USA and the EU

These two approaches US and EU to privacy protection have started to
conflict. The main problem stems from the use of personal data by business
companies. How can the EU ensure that data about its citizens is protected
according to the rules specified in its Directive on Data Protection? According
to whose rules (the EUs or the USAs) is data transferred through a companys
network from the EU to the USA handled? The EU threatened to block the
transfer of data to any country that could not ensure the same level of privacy
protection as spelled out in its directive. This request inevitably led to a clash
with the US self-regulation approach to privacy protection.
This deep-seated difference made any possible agreement more difficult to

achieve. Moreover, adjusting US law to the EU data protection law would
not have been possible since it would have required changing a few important
principles of the US legal system. The breakthrough in the stalemate occurred
when US Ambassador Aaron suggested in 1998 a safe harbour formula.
109
Internet Governance
This reframed the whole issue and provided a way out of the impasse in the
negotiations.
A solution was hit upon where EU regulations could be applied to US

companies inside a legal safe harbour. US companies handling EU citizens
data could voluntarily sign up to observe the EUs privacy protection
requirements. Having signed, companies must observe the formal enforcement
mechanisms agreed upon between the EU and the USA.
When it was signed in 2000, the Safe Harbor Agreement was received
with a great hope as the legal tool that could solve similar problems with
other countries. However, the record is not very encouraging. It has been
criticised by the European Parliament for not sufficiently protecting the
privacy of EU citizens. US companies were not particularly enthusiastic
about using this approach. According to a study done by Galexia, out of 1597
companies registered in the Safe Harbor Framework, only 348 meet the basic
requirements (e.g. privacy policy).58 Given the high importance of privacy
and data protection in the relations between the USA and the EU after
the Snowden revelations, it is likely to expect higher pressure to find some
solution for the dysfunctional Safe Harbor Agreement. In his policy speech at
the European Parliament, Jean-Claude Juncker, the newly elected President
of the European Commission mentioned a safe harbour agreement as one of
possibility for solving data protection problems between the European Union
and the United States.
110
The legal basket
Endnotes
1
One of the strongest supporters of the real-law approach is Judge Frank Easterbrook who
is quoted as saying: Go home; cyberlaw does not exist. In the article Cyberspace and the law
of the horse, he argues that although horses were very important there was never a Law of
the Horse. Judge Easterbrook argues that there is a need to concentrate on the core legal
instruments, such as contracts, responsibility, etc. Available at: http://www.law.upenn.edu/
law619/f2001/week15/easterbrook.pdf [accessed 9 August 2014].

Easterbook who is quoted as saying: Go home, cyberlaw does not exist. In the article
Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse, he argues that although horses were very important
there was never a Law of the Horse. Judge Easterbrook argues that there is a need to
concentrate on the core legal instruments, such as contracts, responsibility, etc.
Available at http://www.law.upenn.edu/law619/f2001/week15/easterbrook.pdf
[accessed 13 February 2014]. Judge Frank Easterbrooks argument provoked several
reactions, including one from Lawrence Lessig in The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw
Might Teach. Available at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/LNC_Q_D2.PDF
2
NTIA (1988) Statement of Policy on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses.
Available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/1998/statement-policy-
management-internet-names-and-addresses [accessed 13 February 2014].
3
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Available at http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/
jessup11/basicmats/VCLT.pdf [accessed 13 February 2014].
4
Brownlie I (1999) Principles of Public International Law, 5th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, p. 513.
5
Salis RP (2001) A Summary of the American Bar Associations (ABA) Jurisdiction in
Cyberspace Project: Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace: A Report on
Global Jurisdiction Issues Created by the Internet. Available at http://www.jstor.org/disc
over/10.2307/40687955?uid=3738216&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103388060741 [accessed
13 February 2014].
6
Among the most important resources in this field is the Princeton Principles on Universal
Jurisdiction (2001). Available at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/princeton.html
7
Malanczuk P (1997) Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law. London:
Routledge, p. 113.
8
For an overview of cases involving extraterritorial jurisdiction related to Internet content,
see Timofeeva YA (2005) Worldwide Prescriptive Jurisdiction in Internet Content
Controversies: A Comparative Analysis. Connecticut Journal of International Law, 20, 199.
Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=637961 [accessed 13 February 2014].
9
EDRI-gram (2006) French anti-hate groups win case against Yahoo! Available at
http://edri.gn.apc.org/edrigram/number4.1/yahoocase [accessed 17 February 2014].
10
Other court cases include the German Federal Court of Justice case against Fredrick Toben,
former German national with Australian nationality who had posted at an Australian-based
111
Internet Governance
website, materials questioning the existence of the holocaust. Available at http://www.ihr.

org/jhr/v18/v18n4p-2_Toben.html [accessed 13 February 2014].
11
Racist content and pornography (in cases presented above) are not the only controversial
issues other examples include illegal gambling, tobacco advertising, and sale of drugs.
12
UNCITRAL(1958) The New York Convention. Available at http://www.uncitral.org/
uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention.html [accessed 13 February
2014].
13
UNCITRAL (1985) Model Law in International Commercial Arbitration. Available
at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_
arbitration.html [accessed 13 February 2014].
14
WIPO (2012) WIPO Prepares for Launch of New gTLDs while Cybersquatting Cases
Continued to Rise. Available at http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2012/
article_0002.html [accessed 13 February 2014].
15
Mashable (no date) Stop Online Piracy Act. Available at http://mashable.com/category/
stop-online-piracy-act/ [accessed 17 February 2014].
16
US Senate (no date) Protect IP Act. Available at http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/
media/doc/BillText-PROTECTIPAct.pdf [accessed 17 February 2014].
17
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/
docs/2011/may/tradoc_147937.pdf [accessed 10 April 2014].
18
La Quadrature du Net, a civil rights advocacy group, has followed closely the developments
on HADOPI law and has instrumented a comprehensive file on ACTA. Available at http://
www.laquadrature.net/en/ACTA [accessed 13 February 2014]. On protests against US
bills see Vijayan J (2012) Protests against SOPA, PIPA go viral, Computerworld. Available
at http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223496/Protests_against_SOPA_PIPA_
go_viral [accessed 13 February 2014].
19
Sorkin AR (2003) Software bullet is sought to kill musical piracy. New York Times 4 May.
Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/business/04MUSI.html [accessed 13
February 2014].
20
US Patents and Trademark Office (no date) Intellectual Property and the National
Information Infrastructure. Available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/
ipnii [accessed 13 February 2014].
21
For an explanation of the concept of fair use and examples see The UK Copyright Service
(no date) Copyright Law fact sheet P-09 : Understanding Fair Use. Available at http://
www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use [accessed 13 February 2014].
22
European Union [EU] (2000) Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in
particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce
and Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001
on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information
society. More information available at http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/
consumers/protection_of_consumers/l24204_en.htm [accessed 13 February 2014].
112
The legal basket
Introduction
23
The Notice and Take Down procedure refers to the obligation of service providers to
remove content from websites under their administration if they receive a notification or
complaint regarding the legality of that specific content.
24
For fear of facing potential legal sanctions, some ISPs prefer to restrict access to indicated
content even when no infringement has taken place. For details please consult the
following case studies: For Europe (the Netherlands): Nas S (2004) The Multatuli Project
ISP Notice & Take Down, Bits of Freedom. Available at https://www-old.bof.nl/docs/
researchpaperSANE.pdf [accessed 13 February 2014]. For the USA: Urban J and Quilter
L (2006), Efficient Process or Chilling Effects? Takedown Notices Under Section 512
of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Available at http://static.chillingeffects.org/
Urban-Quilter-512-summary.pdf [accessed 13 February 2013].
25
EFF (2008) RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later. Available at https://www.eff.org/wp/
riaa-v-people-five-years-later [accessed 13 February 2014].
26
See for example the latest trend in the USA the copyright trolling: Kravets D (2012)
Judge Orders Failed Copyright Troll to Forfeit All Copyrights. Wired.com. Available
at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/troll-forfeits-copyrights [accessed 13
February 2014].
27
For a comprehensive survey of the main issues involving UDRP please consult WIPO
(2011) WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second
Edition (WIPO Overview 2.0) Available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/index.html
28
Loney M (2002) Hyperlink patent case fails to click. CNET News.com. Available at
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-955001.html [accessed 13 February 2014].
29
For more information about the debate in Europe on software patentability, please consult
http://eupat.ffii.org [accessed 13 February 2014].
30
Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (2001) Available at http://conventions.
31
For a listing of anti-cybercrime networks, organisations and initiatives worldwide see the
Council of Europes resources page, available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/
economiccrime/cybercrime/Documents/networks/Networks_en.asp [accessed 13
February 2014].
32
Commonwealth Internet Governance Forum (2012) Commonwealth Cybercrime
Initiative. Available at http://www.commonwealthigf.org/cigf/cybercrime [accessed 13
February 2014].
33
As an example see McAfee Initiative to Fight Cybercrime site and its Multipoint Strategy.
Available at http://www.mcafee.com/us/campaigns/fight_cybercrime/strategy.html
34
For critical views of the Cybercrime Convention expressing the concern of civil society
and human rights activists, please consult: The Association for Progressive Communication
Report on the Cybercrime Convention. Available at http://rights.apc.org/privacy/
treaties_icc_bailey.shtml [accessed 13 February 2014].
113
Internet Governance
35
European Parliament (2006) Data Retention Directive. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:0063:EN:PDF [accessed 13
February 2014].
36
For a detailed overview of the data retention issues in EU see European Commission
(2011) Evaluation report on the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC).
Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/
cmeuleg/428-xxix/42816.htm [accessed 13 February 2014].
37
The Register (2007) EU court rules monitoring of employee breached human rights. 5
April. Available at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/monitoring_breached_
human_rights [accessed 13 February 2014].
38
See the following articles for example: Holding R (2011) Can You Be Fired for Bad-
Mouthing Your Boss on Facebook? Time U.S. Available at http://www.time.com/time/
nation/article/0,8599,2055927,00.html [accessed 13 February 2014]. Broughton A et al.
(2009) Workplaces and Social Networking. The Implications for Employment Relations,
Acas. Available at http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/d/6/1111_Workplaces_and_
Social_Networking.pdf [accessed 13 February 2014].
39
Valuable comments and inputs were provided by Katitza Rodriguez.
40
UN (no date) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available at http://www.un.org/
en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12 [accessed 13 February 2014].
41
UNHCR (no date) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Available at
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx [accessed 27 March
2014].
42
A report issued by the American Civil Liberties Union: Stanley J (2004). The surveillance-
industrial complex: How the American government is conscripting businesses and
individuals in the construction of a surveillance society. This report explains the problem
of the privatisation of surveillance and new challenges linked to the protection of privacy.
Available at https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf [accessed 13
February 2014].
43
UCLA (no date) What is data mining? Available at http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/
faculty/jason.frand/teacher/technologies/palace/datamining.htm [accessed 17 February
2014].
44
Epic.org (no date) US Patriot Act. Available at http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/
hr3162.html [accessed 13 February 2014].
45
46
TRUSTe, the organisation that developed a privacy seal mark to certify compliance of
websites with the privacy requirements, is also monitoring consumer confidence online.
For the latest results of their survey see: TRUSTe Launches New Privacy Index Measuring
Consumer Privacy Insights and Trends. San Francisco, California, 13 February 2012.
Available at http://www.truste.com/about-TRUSTe/press-room/news_truste_
launches_new_trend_privacy_index [accessed 13 February 2013].
114
The legal basket
47
The privacy focus and concern related to social networking sites are very well illustrated by
the attentive monitoring and pressure exerted by media civil rights advocates on Facebook.
For an overview of the wide range of privacy issues raised in relation to the use of this
platform see Wikipedia (2012) Criticism of Facebook. Available at http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook [accessed 13 Facebook 2013].
48
For an overview of the most prominent privacy breaches over time (though with a US
focus) see Marsan C (2012) 15 worst Internet privacy scandals of all time. Network World
26 January. Available at http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/012612-privacy-
scandals-255357.html?page=1 [accessed 13 February 2014].
49
The Economist (2004) Move over, Big Brother. 2 December. Available at http://www.
50
Gov.track.us (no date) Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. Available at http://www.
govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s1301 [accessed 13 February 2014].
51
Council of Europe (no date) Convention for the protection of individual with regard to
automatic processing of personal data. Available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/
treaties/html/108.htm [accessed 13 February 2014].
52
Europa (no date) Protection of personal data. Available at http://europa.eu/legislation_
summaries/information_society/data_protection/l14012_en.htm [accessed 11 April
2012].
53
More details about the reform process are available at http://europa.eu/legislation_
summaries/information_society/data_protection/l14012_en.htm [accessed 13 February
2014].
54
OECD (1980) Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows
of Personal Data. Available at http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/
oecdguidelinesontheprotectionofprivacyandtransborderflowsofpersonaldata.htm
55
Graham-Keach-Bliley Act. Available at http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glbsub1.htm
56
Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act. Available at http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/
rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-
protection-rule [accessed 13 February 2014].
57
Health Information Privacy. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ [accessed 13
February 2014].
58
Connolly C (2008) The US Safe Harbor Fact or Fiction? Galexia. Available at http://
www.galexia.com/public/research/articles/research_articles-pa08.html [accessed 13
February 2014].
115
Internet Governance
116
Section 4
The economic
basket
Internet Governance
118
The economic basket
The economic basket
We know how to route packets.

What we dont know how to do is route dollars
David Clark
T
his quote from David Clark, chief Internet protocol architect, reflected
the spirit of the early Internet community, where the non-profit
Internet project was supported mainly by US research grants. But, in
the 1990s and early 2000s new business models for routing dollars started to
emerge in Silicon Valley centred on income from advertising.
Economic issues in Internet governance are mainly related to this evolution

from the Internet as a non-profit project to one of the main business facilities
and engines of economic growth of modern society. The flow of ideas and
creativity of the early Internet has been complemented by and, increasingly,
finds itself in competition for the flow of money. More money has introduced
more tangible business and policy interests. The creative blue sky is the limit
approach of the early Internet community has begun to converse with the
bottom line logic of the business community.
Internet economic practice is presently considered efficient, because of the

Internets smooth functionality and, in general, its affordable cost. The primary
criticism of the current Internet economy is a risk of a monopoly of the main
Internet and telecom companies that could lead towards distortion of the
market.
Nguyen and Armitrage argue that the Internet should have a proper and
optimal balance between three elements: technical efficiency, economic
efficiency, and social effects.1 Other authors highlight the challenges of
replacing the existing, simple, flat-rate pricing structure with a more complex
one, such as accounting based on the traffic of packets.2 With regard to
practical changes, some believe that changing the current Internet economic
policies could open a Pandoras box.
119
Internet Governance
The bottom line in governance analysis is often an analysis of the flow of

money.3 The answer to the simple question who pays for the Internet is
complex. A number of monetary and non-monetary transactions occur
between the many parties involved with the Internet. We will address them in
four main domains:
P E-commerce: traditional commercial activities conducted via the Internet.
P Internet CONTENT economy: new advertising-based business model.
P Internet ACCESS economy: telecommunication industry in the Internet
era.
P E-payments and cybercurrency.
In addition, we will address the following policy issues of economic relevance:

customer protection, taxation, and digital signatures.
E-commerce
E-commerce has been one of the main engines promoting the growth of the
Internet over the past 15 years. The importance of e-commerce is illustrated
by the title of the document that initiated the reform of Internet governance
and established ICANN: the 1997 Framework for Global Electronic
Commerce,4 which states that the private sector should lead the Internet
governance process and that the main function of this governance will be to
enforce a predictable, minimalist, consistent, and simple legal environment for
commerce. These principles are the foundation of the ICANN-based Internet
governance regime.
Definition
The choice of a definition for e-commerce has many practical and legal
implications. Specific rules are applied depending on whether a particular
transaction is classified as e-commerce, such as those regulating taxation and
customs.
For the US government, the key element distinguishing traditional commerce

from e-commerce is the online commitment to selling goods or services. This
means that any commercial deal concluded online should be considered an
e-commerce transaction, even if the realisation of the deal involves physical
delivery. For example, purchasing a book via Amazon.com is considered
an e-commerce transaction even though the book is usually delivered via
120
The economic basket
traditional mail. The WTO defines e-commerce more precisely as: the
production, distribution, marketing, sale, or delivery of goods and services by
electronic means.5 The EU approach to e-commerce deals with information
society services that cover any service normally provided for remuneration,
at a distance, by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including
digital compression) and storage of data, and at the individual request of a
recipient of a service.6
E-commerce takes many forms:

P Business-to-consumer (B2C) the most familiar type of e-commerce
(e.g. Amazon.com).
P Business-to-business (B2B) economically the most intensive,
comprising over 90% of all e-commerce transactions.7
P Business-to-government (B2G) highly important in the area of
procurement policy.
P Consumer-to-consumer (C2C) for example, ebay auctions.
Many countries are developing a regulatory environment for e-commerce.

Laws have been adopted in the fields of digital signatures, dispute resolution,
cybercrime, customer protection, and taxation. At international level, an
increasing number of initiatives and regimes are related to e-commerce.
The WTO and e-commerce

As the key policy player in modern global trade, the WTO has established
a system of agreements regulating international trade. The major treaties are
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)8 dealing with the
trade in goods, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and
the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS).9 Within this framework, the WTO regulates many relevant
e-commerce issues, including telecommunication liberalisation, IPR, and
some aspects of ICT development. E-commerce figures in the following
WTO activities and initiatives:
P A temporary moratorium on custom duties on e-transactions, introduced
in 1998, has rendered all e-transactions globally free of custom duties.
P The establishment of the WTO Work Programme for Electronic
Commerce promotes discussion on e-commerce.10
P A dispute resolution mechanism; e-commerce was particularly relevant in
the USA/Antigua Online Gambling case.11
121
Internet Governance
Although e-commerce has been on the WTOs diplomatic back-burner,

various initiatives have arisen and a number of key issues have been identified.
Two such issues are mentioned here.
Should e-commerce transactions be categorised under services (regulated

by GATS) or goods (regulated by GATT)?
Does the categorisation of music as a good or a service change depending on
whether it is delivered on a CD (tangible) or via the Internet (intangible)?
Ultimately, the same song could have different trade status (and be subject
to different customs and taxes) depending on the medium of delivery. The
issue of categorisation has considerable implications, because of the different
regulatory mechanisms for goods and services.
What should the link be between TRIPS and the protection of IPR on the
Internet?
Since the WTOs TRIPS agreement provides much stronger enforcement
mechanisms for IPR, developed countries have been trying to extend TRIPS
coverage to e-commerce and to the Internet by using two approaches. First, by
citing the principle of technological neutrality, they argue that TRIPS, like
other WTO rules, should be extended to any telecommunication medium,
including the Internet. Second, some developed countries have requested
the closer integration of WIPOs digital treaties into the TRIPS system.
TRIPS provides stronger enforcement mechanisms than WIPO conventions.
Both issues remain open and they will become increasingly important in
future WTO negotiations. During the current stage of trade negotiations,
it is not very likely that e-commerce will receive prominent attention on
the WTO agenda. The lack of global e-commerce arrangements will be
partially compensated by some specific initiatives (e.g. regarding contracts and
signatures) and various regional agreements, mainly in the EU and the Asia-
Pacific region.
Other international e-commerce initiatives

One of the most successful and widely supported international initiatives in
the field of e-commerce is the United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law12 (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Commerce.13 The
focus of the Model Law is on mechanisms for the integration of e-commerce
with traditional commercial law (e.g. recognising the validity of electronic
documents). The Model Law has been used as the basis for e-commerce
regulation in many countries. Another initiative designed to develop
e-commerce is the introduction of e-business XML (ebXML)14 by the
United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/
122
The economic basket
CEFACT), which is a set of standards based on XML technology. While

these standards are still developing new versions, and the previous set the
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) is still widely deployed, it remains
to be seen if and how they will be adjusted to cope with new trends and
technological developments.15
The OECDs activities touch on various aspects related to e-commerce,

including consumer protection and digital signatures. The OECD emphasises
promotion and research regarding e-commerce through its recommendations
and guidelines.
UNCTAD is particularly active in research and capacity-building, focusing

on the relevance of e-commerce to development. Every year it monitors the
evolution of the information economy in a report which assesses the role
of new technologies in trade and development.16 In the business sector, the
most active international organisations are the International Chamber of
Commerce,17 which produces a wide range of recommendations and analyses
in the field of e-commerce; and the Global Business Dialogue,18 which
promotes e-commerce in both the international and the national context.
Regional initiatives
The EU developed an e-commerce strategy at the so-called Dot Com Summit
of EU leaders in Lisbon (March 2000). Although it embraced a private
and market-centred approach to e-commerce, the EU also introduced a
few corrective measures aimed at protecting public and social interests (the
promotion of universal access, a competition policy involving consideration of
the public interest, and a restriction in the distribution of harmful content).
The EU adopted the Directive on Electronic Commerce19 as well as a set of
other directives related to electronic signatures, data protection, and electronic
financial transactions.
In the Asia-Pacific region, the focal point of e-commerce co-operation is

the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC). APEC established the
E-Commerce Steering Group, which addresses various e-commerce issues,
including consumer protection, data protection, spam, and cybersecurity. The
most prominent initiative is APECs Paperless Trading Individual Action
Plan,20 which aims to create paperless systems in cross-border trade.
123
Internet Governance
Internet CONTENT economy
Figure 16
The new business model of the Internet industry, developed mainly by

companies based in Silicon Valley, started emerging in the late 1990s and
took full shape in the 2010s. The growth of the Internet in the 1990s could
not be sustained on previous public funding; it required a more robust
business model. A few attempts to charge for access to Internet services
and content failed. The new Internet business model does not charge users
for the use of the Internet services; it generates income from sophisticated
advertising.
Users pay for provided services with their data, including information they
generate their electronic footprint as they search and interact on the
Internet. Internet companies analyse user data in order to extract bits of
information about their preferences, tastes, and habits. They also mine the
data to extract information about a group; for instance the behaviour of
teenagers in a particular city or region. Internet companies can predict with
high certainty what a person with a certain profile is going to buy or do. This
valuable block of data about Internet users has different commercial uses.
Mainly, it is purchased by vendors who use it for their marketing activities.
For example, in 2013, 90% of Googles US $55.5 billion annual revenue came
from advertising and related services.21
124
The economic basket
Issues
Protection of users and transparency

Formally speaking, by clicking I agree to usually long and fine-print contracts,
users accept conditions of services. The question remains whether users are
making informed decisions, especially in view of the potential use of their
data for commercial purposes. It is very likely that in many cases users will
accept the deal of exchanging their data for valuable Internet services. The
more transparent and easier to comprehend Internet arrangements are, the
more beneficial it is not only for users but also for Internet companies who
can ensure a more sustainable business model.
Risk of market monopolies

The nature of the Internet industry is prone to the establishment of market
monopolies (e.g. Googles share of Internet searches is more than 80% in
Europe). In addition, there are not global anti-monoply policy regimes which
may deal with the potential global market monopoly of the Internet industry.
Huston argues that establishing monopolies and losing the diverse market
of Internet resources would inevitably affect the price and quality of Internet
services.22
Currently, the EU is the strongest anti-monopoly player globally. With a

market of 500 million people, the EU can force Internet companies to follow
its market regulations and prevent monopolistic practices. The EU initiated
anti-monopoly action against Google, focusing on among other issues the
positioning of paid advertisement on the list of search results. Other countries
with smaller Internet markets and less policy leverage are likely to follow an
arrangement negotiated between the EU and Internet companies.
Internet ACCESS economy
Internet users and companies pay ISPs for Internet access and services.
Typically ISPs have to cover the following expenses from the fees collected:
P Cost of telecommunication expenses and Internet bandwidth to the next
major Internet hub.
P Cost of IP addresses obtained from regional Internet registries (RIRs) or
local Internet registries (LIRs). An IP address is needed by a device to
access the Internet.
P Cost of equipment, software, and maintenance of their installations.
125
Internet Governance
Figure 17
Increasingly, Internet ACCESS business is complicated by regulatory

requirements of governments such as data-retention. More regulation requires
more expenses which could be either passed to Internet users through
subscription or buffered by reduced profit for the ISPs.
The issues
Re-distribution of revenue between telecommunication and Internet

companies
Telecommunication operators are raising the question of re-distribution of
the revenue generated by the Internet. They are trying to increase their share
of the revenue pie generated by the Internet boom. So far, the main business
beneficiaries of the Internet boom are Internet content companies due to their
innovative business model based on online advertising. The main argument
by the telecommunication companies is that they facilitate access to Internet
content through their cables and telecommunication infrastructure.
The telecommunication industry usually justifies requests for a higher

income from Internet-generated revenue by the need to invest in the
upgrading of the telecommunication infrastructure. Content companies, on
the other hand, argue that access providers already charge the end users for
Internet access, and that the main reason for their alleged lower incomes
are their obsolete business models (all-you-can-eat charges such as flat
rates). European telecommunication operators, organised into the European
126
The economic basket
Telecommunications Network Operators Association (ETNO), created a lot

of waves during the preparation for WCIT-12 in Dubai by making a concrete
proposal that would alter the current revenue model by proposing that content
providers (e.g. Facebook, Google) pay for access to their services.
The proposal did not gain support in the preparation for WCIT-12, but it
is likely to remain an open issue in future Internet governance negotiations.
This discussion on the redistribution of Internet revenue strongly underpins
the network neutrality debate for example, should all Internet traffic have
the same status as it does today, or should it be segregated into different
Internet(s) depending on the quality of services, payment, and reliability (e.g.
having a range of Internets from VIP Internet to an Internet for the poor).
Sharing telecommunication revenue with developing countries

Many developing countries have been complaining about the unfavourable
economic conditions of the Internet economy. Compared to the traditional
telephony system, where the price of each international call is shared between
two countries, the Internet model puts the entire burden on one side the
developing countries that have to finance connection to Internet backbones
located mainly in developed countries. As a result, paradoxically, small and
poor countries may end up subsidising the Internet in developed countries.
The problem of financial settlement is particularly relevant for the poorest

countries, which rely on income from international telecommunications as an
important budgetary source. The situation has been further complicated with
the introduction of VoIP Internet telephony which shifts telephone traffic
from national telecommunications operators to the Internet.
Developing countries have been raising the question of fairer Internet access
business models during WSIS, ITU working groups, and, more recently, at
WCIT-12 in Dubai.
E-banking, e-money, and virtual currencies

Digital cash is a threat to every government on this planet
that wants to manage its own currency.
David Saxton23
E-banking involves the use of the Internet to conduct conventional banking

operations, such as card payments or fund transfers. The novelty is only in
the medium; the banking service remains essentially the same. E-banking
127
Internet Governance
provides advantages to customers by introducing new services and reducing

the costs of transactions. For example, it is estimated that customer
transactions, which cost $4 in traditional banking, cost only $0.17 in Internet
banking.24
E-money is defined by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) as stored

value or prepaid payment mechanisms for executing payments via point-of-
sale terminals, direct transfers between two devices, or over open computer
networks such as the Internet.25 E-money is usually associated with so-called
smart cards issued by companies such as Mondex and Visa Cash. E-money is
anchored in the existing banking and monetary system (financial legal tender).
Unlike e-money, virtual currencies are not part of a national financial system.
Issuing virtual currencies would be akin to printing money without the
control of a central banking institution. Bitcoin is the most well-known virtual
currency, and is also described as a cryptocurrency, since it is created through a
special process based on cryptography.26
The issues
Changes to the worldwide banking system

The further use of both e-banking and e-money could bring about changes
to the worldwide banking system, providing customers with additional
possibilities while simultaneously reducing banking charges. Bricks-and-
mortar banking methods will be seriously challenged by more cost-effective
e-banking.27 It should be noted that many traditional banks have already
adopted e-banking. In 2002, there were only 30 e-banks in the United States.
Today it is difficult to find a bank without e-banking services.
Mobile commerce
E-payments and e-money are currently undergoing fast changes at the same pace as
technology and devices evolve and develop. Mobile payments have already surpassed
the simple orders placed via SMS at the beginning, as mobile phones became more
sophisticated and intelligent (like smart phones and iPhones) allowing for diverse
applications, including for mobile commerce.28
Cybersecurity
Cybersecurity is one of the main challenges to the wider deployment of
e-payments. How can the safety of financial transactions via the Internet be
ensured? Cybersecurity has been already been discussed. On this point, it is
128
The economic basket
important to stress the responsibility of banks and other financial institutions

for the security of online transactions. The main development in this respect
was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOXA),29 adopted by the US Congress as a
reaction to the Enron, Arthur Andersen, and WorldCom financial scandals.
This act tightens financial control and increases the responsibility of financial
institutions for the security of online
transactions. It also shares the burden of
discussion on
security responsibility between customers cybersecurity
who have to demonstrate certain prudence
and financial institutions.30
Lack of payment methods

A lack of payment methods is often viewed as one of the main impediments
to the faster development of e-commerce. Currently, e-commerce is conducted
primarily by credit card. This is a significant obstacle for developing countries
that do not have a developed credit card market. The governments in those
countries would have to enact the necessary legal changes in order to enable
the faster introduction of card payments.
National initiatives
In order to foster the development of e-commerce, governments worldwide
need to encourage all forms of cash-free payments, including credit cards
and e-money. The faster introduction of e-money will require additional
governmental regulatory activities. After Hong Kong, the first to introduce
comprehensive e-money legislation, the EU adopted the Electronic Money
Directive31 in 2000 (it was revised in 2009). Unlike e-money, there is no
regulation of virtual currency in the EU. Currently, it is left to the member
states to regulate virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. Germany considers
Bitcoin as private money exchanged between two persons or entities. In the
UK, it is a considered a means of exchange but not money. Most countries
have chosen a wait and see approach. Currently, Bitcoin does not present a
major risk for the monetary system in the form of various misuses (money
laundering, theft, etc.). However, some countries, such as Russia and Thailand,
have taken more radical steps by banning Bitcoin.
Addressing the issue at international level

Due to the nature of the Internet, it is likely that e-money and virtual
currencies will become global phenomena, thus providing a reason to address
this issue at international level. One potential player in the field of e-banking
is the Basel Committee E-Banking Group. This group has already started
addressing authorisation, prudential standards, transparency, privacy, money
laundering, and cross-border supervision, which are key issues for the
introduction of e-money.32
129
Internet Governance
Regarding virtual currency, the main international initiative has been taken
in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) which addresses the questions of
money laundering and the financing of terrorism.33 The USA has initiated
discussions in the FATF on how to apply rules against money laundering and
the financing of terrorism in the field of virtual currencies.
The law enforcement link

The 2002 request from the New York State Attorney General to Pay-Pal and
Citibank not to execute payments to Internet casinos directly links electronic
payment to law enforcement.34 What the law enforcement authorities could
not achieve through legal mechanisms, they could accomplish through the
control of electronic payments.
Privacy
The use of e-payment systems leaves a trace of every transaction performed
which is recorded by the issuers of the e-payment instrument (credit card
companies, banks). While the keeping of such records is needed and justifiable
for clearing purposes and evidence of payments, the aggregation of such data
may pose serious threats to users privacy if data mining is used for tracking
purchasing and spending habits or scoring clients for provision of future
financial services.35
Risks and misuse of virtual currencies

The risks of virtual currency became clear after the closure of Mt Gox, one
of the biggest Bitcoin companies, in February 2014.36 A large number of
investors lost close to US$ 500 million.
There are many warnings that virtual currencies could be misused for illegal
goods and services, fraud, and money laundering. The anonymity of Bitcoin
transactions increases the potential for possible misuse. So far, there have only
been a few cases of reported misuse. The FBI closed the Silk Road website
which was used to trade in stolen card data, drugs, and other illegal products;
the website used Bitcoin as its payment method.
Consumer protection
Consumer trust is one of the main preconditions for the success of

e-commerce. E-commerce is still relatively new and consumers are not as
confident with it as with real-world shopping. Consumer protection is an
130
The economic basket
important legal method for developing trust in e-commerce. E-commerce

regulation should protect customers in a number of areas:
P Online handling of payment card information.
P Misleading advertising.
P Delivery of defective products.
A new idiosyncrasy of e-commerce is the internationalisation of consumer

protection, which is not a vital issue in traditional commerce. In the past,
consumers rarely needed international protection. Consumers were buying
locally and therefore needed local customer protection. With e-commerce, an
increasing number of transactions take place across international borders.
Jurisdiction is a significant issue surrounding consumer protection. It involves

two main approaches. The first favours the seller (mainly e-business) and is a
country-of-origin/prescribed-by-seller approach. In this scenario, e-commerce
companies have the advantage of relying on a predictable and well-known
legal environment. The other approach, which favours the customer, is a
country-of-destination approach.
The main disadvantage for e-commerce companies is the potential for

exposure to a wide variety of legal jurisdictions. One possible solution to this
dilemma is a more intensive harmonisation of consumer protection rules,
making the question of jurisdiction less relevant. As with other e-commerce
issues, the OECD assumed the lead by adopting the 1999 Guidelines
for Consumer Protection in the Context of E-commerce37 and the 2003
Guidelines for Protecting Consumers from Fraudulent and Deceptive
Commercial Practices Across Borders.38 The main principles established
by the OECD are still valid and have been adopted by other business
associations, including the International Chamber of Commerce and the
Council of Better Business Bureaus.39
The EU offers a high level of e-commerce consumer protection and

promotes awareness campaigns on online shopping issues. The problem of
jurisdiction has been solved via the Brussels I Regulation,40 which stipulates
that consumers will always have recourse to local legal protection. The recast
Brussels I Regulation,41 applicable as of January 2015, further harmonises the
rules of jurisdiction by extending the situations under which individuals not
domiciled in the EU can be sued by consumers in the courts of EU member
states.
131
Internet Governance
More than half of EU consumers (53%) made at least one purchase online in
the 12 months to September 2012, almost doubling since 2006. Yet just 15%
purchased online from vendors outside their own country. This is reflected
in the confidence rating: while 53% feel comfortable purchasing from online
domestic retailers, only 36% feel comfortable buying online from another EU
country.42
At global level, no apposite international legal instruments have been

established. One of the most apt, the 1980 UN Convention on Contracts for
the International Sale of Goods,43 does not cover consumer contracts and
consumer protection.
A number of private associations and non-governmental organisations

also focus on consumer e-commerce protection, including Consumers
International, the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement
Network, and Consumer Reports WebWatch.
The future development of e-commerce will require either the harmonisation

of national laws or a new international regime for e-commerce customer
protection.
Taxation
After Faraday discovered the basic principle of electricity in 1831

(electromagnetic induction), a sceptical politician asked him about the
purpose of his invention. Faraday responded with: Sir, I do not know what it
is good for. But of one thing I am quite certain, some day you will tax it. 44
With the Internet moving into the mainstream of modern society, the
question of taxation has come into sharper focus. It has become even more
important since the financial crisis in 2008. Many governments have been
trying to increase fiscal income in order to reduce growing public debt.
The most comprehensive report on Internet taxation was presented by the
French Ministry of Economy and Finance in January 2013.45 The taxation
of economic activities on the Internet became one of the first possibilities for
increasing fiscal income.
The Internet governance dilemma of whether cyber issues should be treated

differently from real-life issues is clearly mirrored in the question of taxation.46
Since the early days, the USA has been attempting to declare the Internet a
132
The economic basket
tax-free zone. In 1998, the US Congress adopted the Internet Tax Freedom
Act,47 which was extended for another three years in December 2004. In
October 2007, the Act was extended until 2014, in spite of some fears that it
could lead to a substantial revenue loss.48
The OECD and the EU have promoted the opposite view, i.e., that the
Internet should not have special taxation treatment. The OECDs Ottawa
Principles specify that taxation of e-commerce should not be based on the
same principles as taxation for traditional commercial activities.49 By applying
this principle, the EU introduced a regulation in 2003 requesting non-EU
e-commerce companies to pay value added tax (VAT) if they sold goods
within the EU. The main motivation for the EUs decision was that non-EU
(mainly US) companies had an edge over European companies, which had to
pay VAT on all transactions, including electronic ones.
Another e-taxation issue that remains unresolved between the EU and

the USA is the question of the location of taxation. The Ottawa Principles
introduced a destination instead of origin principle of taxation. The US
government has a strong interest in having taxation remain at the origin of
transactions, since most e-commerce companies are based in the USA. In
contrast, the EUs interest in destination taxation is largely inspired by the
actuality that the EU has more e-commerce consumers than sellers.
Digital signatures
Broadly speaking, digital signatures are linked to the authentication of

individuals on the Internet, which affects many aspects, including jurisdiction,
cybercrime, and e-commerce. The use of digital signatures should contribute
to building trust on the Internet. Digital authentication in general is part
of the e-commerce framework. It should facilitate e-commerce transactions
through the conclusion of e-contracts. For example, is an agreement valid and
binding if it is completed via e-mail or through a website? In many countries,
the law requires that contracts must be in writing or signed. What does this
mean in terms of the Internet? Faced with these dilemmas and pressured to
establish an e-commerce-enabling environment, many governments have
started adopting legislation on digital signatures.
When it comes to digital signatures, the main challenge is that governments

are not regulating an existing problem, such as cybercrime or copyright
infringement, but creating a new regulatory environment in which they have
133
Internet Governance
no practical experience. This has resulted in a variety of solutions and a general

vagueness in the provisions on digital signatures. Three major approaches to
the regulation of digital signatures have emerged.50
The first is a minimalist approach, specifying that electronic signatures

cannot be denied because they are in electronic form. This approach specifies
a very broad use of digital signatures and has been adopted in common law
countries: the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.
The second approach is maximalist, specifying a framework and procedures for

digital signatures, including cryptography and the use of public key identifiers.
This approach usually specifies the establishment of dedicated certificate
authorities, which can certify future users of digital signatures. This approach
has prevailed in the laws of European countries, such as Germany and Italy.
The third approach, adopted within the EU Electronic Signatures Directive,51

combines these two approaches. It has a minimalist provision for the
recognition of signatures supplied via an electronic medium. The maximalist
approach is also recognised through granting that advanced electronic
signatures will have stronger legal effect in the legal system (e.g. easier to
prove these signatures in court cases). The EU regulation on digital signatures
was one of the responses at multilateral level. While it has been adopted in
all EU member states, a difference in the legal status of digital signatures still
remains.52
At global level, in 2001, UNCITRAL adopted the Model Law on

Electronic Signatures,53 which grants the same status to digital signatures
as to handwritten ones, providing some technical requirements are met.
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) issued a General Usage in
International Digitally Ensured Commerce (GUIDEC), which provides a
survey of the best practices, regulations, and certification issues.54
Public key infrastructure (PKI) initiatives are directly related to digital

signatures. Two organisations, the ITU and the IETF, are involved with PKI
standardisation.
The issues
Privacy and digital signatures

Digital signatures are part of a broader consideration of the relationship
between privacy and authentication on the Internet. Digital signatures are just
one of the important techniques used to identify individuals on the Internet.55
134
The economic basket
For instance, in some countries where digital signature legislation or standards

and procedures have not yet been set up, SMS authentication via mobile
phones is used by banks for approving customers online transactions.
The need for detailed implementation standards

Although many developed countries have adopted broad digital signature
legislation, it often lacks detailed implementation standards and procedures.
Given the novelty of the issues involved, many countries are waiting to see in
which direction concrete standards will develop. Standardisation initiatives
occur at various levels, including international organisations (the ITU),
regional bodies (European Committee for Standardization CEN), and
professional associations (the IETF).
The risk of incompatibility

The variety of approaches and standards in the field of digital signatures
could lead to incompatibility between different national systems. Patchwork
solutions could restrict the development of e-commerce at a global level. The
necessary harmonisation should be provided through regional and global
organisations.
135
Internet Governance
Endnotes
1
Thuy T, Nguyen T, Armitage GJ (2005) Evaluating Internet Pricing Schemes: A Three-
Dimensional Visual Model. ETRI Journal 27(1) pp. 64-74. Available at http://etrij.etri.
re.kr/etrij/journal/article/article.do?volume=27&issue=&page=64? [accessed 13
February 2014].
2
Hayel Y, Maille P, Tuffin B (2005) Modelling and analysis of Internet Pricing: introduction
and challenges in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Applied Models and Data
Analysis (ASMDA), Brest, France. Available at http://conferences.telecom-bretagne.eu/
asmda2005/IMG/pdf/proceedings/1389.pdf [accessed 13 February 2014].
3
Andrew Odlyzko views the question of pricing and architecture on the Internet from
a historical perspective. Identifying the thread in the pricing policy from the pricing of
transportation systems in the ancient world, he links with the current Internet pricing
policy. For more information, consult: Odlyzko A (2004) Pricing and Architecture of the
Internet: Historical Perspectives from Telecommunications and Transportation. Available at
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/pricing.architecture.pdf [accessed 13 February
2014].
4
The White House (1997) Framework for Global Electronic Commerce. Available at http://
clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Commerce/ [accessed 17 February 2014].
5
WTO (1998) Work programme on electronic commerce. Available at http://www.wto.
org/english/tratop_e/ecom_e/wkprog_e.htm [accessed 17 February 2014].
6
European Union [EU] (2000) Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society
services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on
electronic commerce). Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:EN:NOT [accessed 17 February 2014].
7
Global Web Index. GlobalWebIndex e-Commerce Report: Online Plays a Role in 90% of
Transactions. Available at http://blog.globalwebindex.net/globalwebindex-e-commerce-
report-online-plays-a-role-in-90-of-transactions/ [accessed 10 August 2014].
8
WTO (no date) GATT and the Goods Council. Available at http://www.wto.org/
english/tratop_e/gatt_e/gatt_e.htm [accessed 17 February 2014].
9
WTO (1994) Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
Available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm [accessed 17
February 2014].
10
This section of the WTO website focuses on e-commerce. Available at http://www.wto.
org/english/tratop_e/ecom_e/ecom_e.htm [accessed 17 February 2014].
11
For more information about the USA/Antigua Online Gambling Case, please consult
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds285_e.htm [accessed 17
February 2014].
12
UNCITRAL website. Available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/index.html
136
The economic basket
13
UNCITRAL (1996) Model Law on Electronic Commerce. Available at http://www.
uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/1996Model.html
14
ebXML website. Available at http://www.ebxml.org/ [accessed 17 February 2014].
15
See for example a discussion about the relevance of ebXML standard today. Available at
http://www.infoq.com/news/2012/01/ebxml [accessed 17 February 2014].
16
UNCTAD (no date) Economic reports. Available at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/
Publications/InformationEconomyReportSeries.aspx [accessed 17 February 2014].
17
International Chamber of Commerce website. Available at http://www.iccwbo.org/
18
The Global Business Dialogue website. Available at http://www.gbdinc.org/ [accessed 17
February 2014].
19
European Commission (no date) E-commerce directive. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/
internal_market/e-commerce/directive_en.htm [accessed 17 February 2014].
20
APEC (no date) Paperless Trading Individual Action Plan. Available at http://www.apec.
org/Groups/Committee-on-Trade-and-Investment/Electronic-Commerce-Steering-
Group/Paperless-Trading-Individual-Action-Plan.aspx [accessed 17 February 2014].
21
Google (no date) Investor relations. Available at http://investor.google.com/financial/
tables.html [accessed 10 August 2014].
22
Huston G (2005) Wheres the Money? Internet Interconnection and Financial Settlements.
The ISP Column. Available at http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-01/interconn.pdf
23
As quoted in Holland K and Cortese A (1995) The future of money: e-cash could
transform the worlds financial life. Available at http://www.businessweek.com/1995/24/
b3428001.htm [accessed 17 February 2014].
24
As reported in Olson T (2012) Higher costs, new laws mean no more free rides on some
bank services, accounts. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, April 1. Available at http://www.
pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_789300.html [accessed 17 February
2014].
25
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (1998) Risk Management for Electronic Banking
and Electronic Money Activities. Basel March 1998 Available at http://www.bis.org/publ/
bcbs35.pdf [accessed 17 February 2014]. Final version published in 2003 and available at
http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs98.htm [accessed 17 February 2014].
26
Kamberi A (2014) Cryptocurrencies and bitcoin. Available at http://www.diplomacy.edu/
blog/cryptocurrencies-and-bitcoin [accessed 10 August 2014].
27
This article provides an introduction to online banking and a survey of the advantages and
disadvantages in comparison to traditional banking. Available at http://www.bankrate.
com/brm/olbstep2.asp [accessed 17 February 2014].
28
appsworldblog (2011) 5 Reasons why you need to be ready for Mobile Payments. August
10. Available at http://www.apps-world.net/blog/2011/08/10/5-reasons-why-you-need-
to-be-ready-for-mobile-payments/ [accessed 17 February 2014].
137
Internet Governance
29
Soxlaw (no date) A guide to the Sarbanes Oxley Act. Available at http://www.soxlaw.com/
30
For more information, consult: Jacobs E (no date), Security as a Legal Obligation: About
EU Legislation Related to Security and Sarbanes-Oxley in the European Union. Available
at http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/JIBC/2005-08/security.htm [accessed 17
February 2014].
31
European Commission (no date) E-money. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_
market/payments/emoney/index_en.htm [accessed 17 February 2014].
32
The Basel Group is based at the Bank for International Settlements. It provides a Survey
of Developments in Electronic Money and Internet and Mobile Payments. Available at http://
www.bis.org/publ/cpss62.pdf [accessed 17 February 2014].
33
FATF website. Available at http://www.fatf-gafi.org/pages/aboutus/ [accessed 10 August
2014].
34
Richtel M (2002) PayPal and New York in Accord on Gambling. The New York Times,
August 22. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/22/business/technology-
paypal-and-new-york-in-accord-on-gambling.html?src=pm [accessed 17 February
2014].
35
Prater C (2009) What you buy, where you shop may affect your credit. Available at http://
www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/how-shopping-can-affect-credit-1282.php
36
Villar R, Knight S, Wolf B (2014) Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox goes dark in blow to virtual
currency. Available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-mtgox-website-
idUSBREA1O07920140225 [accessed 10 August 2014].
37
OECD (1999) Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of
Economic Commerce. Available at http://www.oecd.org/internet/consumer/
oecdguidelinesforconsumerprotectioninthecontextofelectroniccommerce1999.htm
38
OECD (2003) Guidelines for Protecting Consumers from Fraudulent and
Deceptive Commercial Practices. Available at http://www.oecd.org/sti/consumer/
oecdguidelinesforprotectingconsumersfromfraudulentanddeceptive
commercialpracticesacrossborders2003.htm [accessed 17 February 2014].
39
Better Business Bureaus website. Available at http://www.bbb.org/us/cbbb/ [accessed 17
February 2014].
40
European Union (no date) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (Brussels I Regulation). Available
at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32001R0044
41
European Union (no date) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Recast Brussels I Regulation).
Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:351:0
001:0032:en:PDF [accessed 11 August 2014].
42
The Gallup Organisation (2013) Consumer attitudes towards cross-border trade and consumer
protection. Analytical Report. Flash Eurobarometer. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/
public_opinion/flash/fl_358_sum_en.pdf [accessed 14 August 2014].
138
The economic basket
43
UNCITRAL (1980) UN CISG. Available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/uncitral_
texts/sale_goods/1980CISG.html [accessed 17 February 2014].
44
Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT) (1999).
Cybertax. Available at www.merit.unu.edu/publications/rmpdf/1998/rm1998-020.pdf
45
Collin P, Colin N (2013) Mission dexpertise sur la fiscalit de lconomie numrique.
Available at http://www.redressement-productif.gouv.fr/files/rapport-fiscalite-du-
numerique_2013.pdf [accessed 10 August 2014].
46
For a discussion on various aspects of taxation policy and the Internet, please consult:
Cockfield AJ (2001) Transforming the Internet into a Taxable Forum: A Case Study
in E-Commerce Taxation, 85 Minn. L. Rev. 1171, 1235-1236; Morse EA (1997) State
Taxation of Internet Commerce: Something New under the Sun? 30 Creighton L. Rev.
1113, 1124-1227; Williams WR (2001) The Role of Caesar in the Next Millennium?
Taxation of E-Commerce: An Overview and Analysis, 27 Wm Mitchell L. Rev. 1703, 1707.
47
Internet Tax Freedom Act. Available at http://legacy.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/itfa.htm
48
Mazerov M (2007) Making the Internet Tax Freedom Act permanent could lead to a
substantial revenue loss for states and localities. Available at http://www.cbpp.org/7-11-
07sfp.htm [accessed 17 February 2014].
49
The Ottawa Taxation Principles are: Neutrality, Efficiency, Certainty and simplicity,
Effectiveness and fairness, Flexibility. See OECD (2003) Implementation of the Ottawa
Taxation Framework Conditions. The 2003 Report. Available at http://www.oecd.org/tax/
administration/20499630.pdf [accessed 17 February 2014].
50
For a more detailed explanation of these three approaches, please consult: ILPF (no date)
Survey of International Electronic and Digital Signature Initiatives. Available at http://
www.ilpf.org/groups/survey.htm#IB [accessed 17 February 2014].
51
European Commission (1999) Directive on Electronic Signatures. Available at http://
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0093:en:HTML
52
European Commission (2006) Report on the Operation of Directive 1999/93/EC on a
Community Framework for Electronic Signatures. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/%20LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0120:FIN:EN:PDF [accessed 17
February 2014].
53
UNCITRAL (2001) Model Law on Electronic Signatures. Available at http://www.
uncitral.org/uncitral/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/2001Model_signatures.html
54
More information on GUIDEC elaboration can be found on the ICC dedicated webpage.
Available at http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id2340/index.html [accessed 17
February 2014].
55
Longmuir G (2000) Privacy and Digital Authentication. Available at http://caligula.anu.
edu.au/~gavin/ResearchPaper.htm [accessed 17 February 2014]. This paper focuses on
the personal, community, and governmental aspects of the need for authentication in a
digital world.
139
Internet Governance
140
Section 5
The development
basket
Internet Governance
142
The development basket
T
echnology is never neutral. The history of human society provides
many examples of technology empowering some individuals, groups,
or nations, while excluding others. The Internet is no different in
this respect. From the individual to the global level, a profound change has
occurred in the distribution of wealth and power. The impact of the Internet
on the distribution of power and development has given rise to many
questions, including:
P Will the Internet reduce or broaden the existing divide between

developed and developing worlds?
P How and when will developing nations be able to reach the digital levels
of more industrially developed countries?
The answers to these and other questions require an analysis of the relevance
of development within the context of Internet governance. Almost every
Internet governance issue has a developmental aspect:
P The existence of a telecommunication infrastructure facilitates access, the
first precondition for overcoming the digital divide.
P The current economic model for Internet access, which places a
disproportionate burden on those developing countries that have to
finance access to backbones based in developed countries.
P The global regulation of intellectual property rights, which directly affects
development, because of the reduced opportunity of developing countries
to access knowledge and information online.
The developmental aspect of WSIS has been frequently repeated, beginning

with the first UN General Assembly Resolution on WSIS, which stressed
that WSIS should be promoting development, in particular with respect to
access to and transfer of technology.1 The WSIS Geneva Declaration and
Plan of Action highlighted development as a priority and linked it to the
UN Millennium Declaration2 and its promotion of access of all countries to
information, knowledge, and communication technologies for development.
143
Internet Governance
With the link to the millennium development goals (MDGs),3 WSIS is

strongly positioned in the development context.
This axis of concern was continued within the IGF, where the development
theme was highlighted starting with the first meeting in Athens (2006) and
continued to be present with dedicated workshops and even a main session
in Vilnius (2010). Development-related concerns were among the top five
most frequently raised issues in the context of the debate on the continuation
of the IGF, notably improving participation from developing countries and
increasing the priority given to development.4
How does ICT affect the development of society?

The main dilemmas about ICT and development were summarised in an
article in The Economist,5 which proposes arguments for and against the thesis
that ICT provides specific impetus for development.
Table 3
ICT does NOT facilitate development ICT facilitates development
P The network externalities help P ICT lowers labour costs; it is cheaper to

firstcomers establish a dominant invest in developing countries.
position. This favours American giants so P ICT quickly diffuses across borders
that local firms in emerging economies compared to earlier technologies.
would be effectively frozen out of Previous technologies (railways and
e-commerce. electricity) took decades to spread to
P The shift in power from seller to buyer developing countries, but ICT is advancing
(the Internet inevitably gives rise to an in leaps and bounds.
alternative supplier is never more than P ICT offers the opportunity to leapfrog old
a mouse-click away scenario) will harm technologies by skipping intermediate
poorer countries. It will harm commodity stages, such as copper wires and
producers mainly from developing analogue telephones, and encourages
countries. development.
P Higher interest in high-tech shares in rich
P ICTs propensity to reduce the optimal
economies will reduce investor interest in size of a firm in most industries is
developing countries. much closer to the needs of developing
countries.
The digital divide
The digital divide can be defined as a rift between those who, for technical,
political, social, or economic reasons, have access and capabilities to use
ICT/Internet, and those who do not. Various views have been put forward
about the size and relevance of the digital divide. Digital divide(s) exist at
different levels: within countries and between countries, between rural and
urban populations, between the old and the young, as well as between men
144
and women. The OECD refers to the digital divide as the gap between
individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different
socioeconomic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access
information and communication technologies (ICTs) and to their use of the
Internet for a wide variety of activities.6
Digital divides are not independent phenomena. They reflect existing

broad socio-economic inequalities in education, healthcare, capital, shelter,
employment, clean water, and food. This was clearly stated by the G8 Digital
Opportunity Task Force (DOT Force): There is no dichotomy between
the digital divide and the broader social and economic divides which the
development process should address; the digital divide needs to be understood
and addressed in the context of these broader divides.7
Is the digital divide widening?

ICT/Internet developments leave the developing world behind at a much
faster rate than advances in other fields (e.g. agricultural or medical techniques)
and, as the developed world has the necessary tools to successfully use these
technological advances, the digital divide appears to be continuously and rapidly
widening. This is frequently the view expressed in various highly regarded
documents, such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Human Development Reports and the ILO Global Employment Reports.
Some opposing views argue that statistics on the digital divide are often
misleading and that the digital divide is in fact not widening at all. According
to this view, the traditional focus on the number of computers, the number
of Internet websites, or the available bandwidth should be replaced with
a focus on the broader impact of ICT/Internet on societies in developing
countries. Frequently quoted examples are the digital successes of Brazil,
India, and China. However, the criteria for assessing the digital divide gaps
are also changing and becoming more complex in order to better capture the
development realities. Current assessments take into account aspects like ICT
readiness and overall ICT impact on society. The World Economic Forum
has developed the Networked Readiness Index (NRI) as a new approach in
measuring the Internet-level of countries worldwide.8 It also provides new
perspectives on how the digital divide is addressed.
Universal access
In addition to the digital divide, another frequently mentioned concept in the
development debate is universal access, i.e., access for all. Although it should
be the cornerstone of any digital development policy, differing perceptions
145
Internet Governance
and conceptions of the nature and scope of this universal access policy remain.
The question of universal access at global level remains largely an open issue,
ultimately dependent on the readiness of developed countries to invest in the
realisation of this goal.
Unlike universal access at global level, in some countries universal access is

a well-developed economic and legal concept. Providing telecommunication
access to all citizens has been the basis of US telecommunication policy.
The result has been a well-developed system of various policy and financial
mechanisms, the purpose of which is to subsidise access costs in remote areas
and regions with high connection costs. The subsidy is financed by regions
with low connection costs, primarily the big cities. The EU has also taken a
number of concrete steps towards achieving universal access by promoting
policies to ensure every citizen has access to basic communication services,
including Internet connection, and enacting specific regulations thereof.9
Strategies for overcoming the digital divide

The technologically centred development theory, which has dominated
policy and academic circles over the past 50 years, argues that development
depends on the availability of technology. The more technology the more
development. However, this approach failed in many countries (mainly
former socialist countries) where it became obvious that the development
of society is a much more complex process. Technology is a necessary but
not self-sufficient precondition for development. Other elements include a
regulatory framework, financial support, available human resources, and other
sociocultural conditions. Even if all of these ingredients are present, the key
challenge remains of how and when they should be used, combined, and
interplayed.
Developing telecommunications and

Internet infrastructures
Access to the Internet is one of the main challenges to overcoming the digital
divide. The Internet penetration rate in 2012 in Africa was 16.6%, compared
to 78.6% in North America or 63.2% in Europe, but it registered the highest
growth in the last decade.10 There are two main aspects related to access to
the Internet in developing countries. First is access to international Internet
backbones. Second is connectivity within developing countries.
146
Access to international Internet backbones depends mainly on the availability

of submarine fibre-optic cables. For a long time, only Western Africa, as far
as South Africa, was serviced by submarine cable SAT-3. East Africa has
much faster access with the East African Submarine Cable System (EASSy)
which began operation in July 2010. It creates a digital ring around Africa
which substantially increases the available Internet bandwidth for the African
continent.
Small and remote islands face similar challenges in accessing the Internet, as
many depend on expensive satellite connectivity. Efforts are underway to find
the most efficient solutions for connectivity in such areas.11
Another solution for improved access is the introduction of Internet exchange

points (IXPs) which keep local traffic within the country and reduce both
usage and cost of international bandwidth. IXPs are technical facilities
through which different ISPs exchange Internet traffic through peering
(without paying). IXPs are usually established in order to keep Internet traffic
within smaller communities (e.g. city, region, country), avoiding unnecessary
routing over remote geographical locations. IXPs can also play an important
role in reducing the digital divide. Still, many developing countries do not
have IXPs, which means a considerable part of traffic between the clients
within the country is routed through another country. This increases the
volume of long-distance international data traffic and the cost of providing
Internet service. Various initiatives seek to establish IXPs in developing
countries.12 One that has achieved considerable success is that of the African
Internet Service Provider Association, which established several IXPs in
Africa.
Connectivity within developing countries is another major challenge. The

majority of Internet users were concentrated in major cities. Rural areas
usually had no access to the Internet. The situation started changing with
the rapid growth of mobile telephony and wireless communication. Wireless
communication might be the solution to the problem of developing a
traditional terrestrial communications infrastructure (laying cables over very
long distances throughout many Asian and African countries). In this context,
the radio spectrum policies are of utmost importance in ensuring spectrum
availability and creating the conditions of an open wireless Internet that can
be shared among users. In this way, the problem of the last mile or local loop,
one of the key obstacles to faster Internet development, can be overcome.
Traditionally, the infrastructural aspect of the digital divide has been the focus
of the ITU through its Telecommunication Development Sector (ITU-D).
147
Internet Governance
Who should cover the cost of links between developing and developed
countries?
When an end-user in Africa sends an e-mail to a correspondent in Europe or
the USA, it is the African ISP who bears the cost of international connectivity
from Africa to the USA. Conversely, when a European end-user sends an
e-mail to Africa, it is still the African ISP who bears the cost of international
connectivity, and ultimately the African end-user who bears the brunt by
paying higher subscriptions.
The main argument in discussions about changes to the current system of

Internet charges uses the analogy of the telephone financial settlement system,
which shares the cost and income between communication end-points.
However, Geoff Huston argues that this analogy is not sustainable. In the
telephony system, only one clearly identifiable commodity13 a phone call
establishing human conversation between two telephone sets has a price.
The Internet does not have an equivalent, single commodity; it has packets,
which take different routes through the network. This fundamental difference
makes this analogy inappropriate. It is also the main reason why the telephone
financial settlement model cannot be applied to the Internet.
The ITU initiated discussions on possible improvements to the current

system for the settlement of Internet expenses, with the main objective of
having a more balanced distribution of costs for Internet access. Due to
opposition from developed countries and telecom operators, the adopted ITU
Recommendation D. 50, is practically ineffective.14 Unsuccessful attempts
were also made to introduce this issue during WTO negotiations. The need
for adjustments in interconnection charges was reiterated in the WSIS final
documents and in the WGIG report.
Financial support
During the WSIS process, the importance of financial support for bridging
the digital divide was clearly recognised. One idea proposed at WSIS
was the establishment of a UN-administered Digital Solidarity Fund to
help technologically disadvantaged countries build telecommunication
infrastructures. However, the proposal to establish a Digital Solidarity Fund
did not garner broad support from the developed countries, which favoured
direct investment instead of the establishment of a centralised development
fund.
148
Developing countries receive financial support through various channels,

including bilateral or multilateral development agencies, such as the UNDP
or the World Bank, as well as regional development initiatives and banks.
With increased liberalisation of the telecommunications market, a tendency
for developing telecommunication infrastructures through foreign direct
investment has grown. Since telecommunication markets of developed
countries are oversaturated, many international telecommunication companies
see the markets of developing countries as the area for future growth.
Sociocultural aspects
The sociocultural aspect of digital divides encompasses a variety of issues,

including literacy, ICT skills, training, education, and language protection.
The existence of communications infrastructure is useless unless people

possess the means (devices) and the knowledge (ICT literacy) to access and
benefit from the Internet. International initiatives and organisations such
as One Laptop per Child or Computer Aid International aim at providing
refurbished and low-cost equipment to under-served communities in
developing countries. Local initiatives to provide affordable computer devices
took off as well, but challenges still remain with respect to performance.15
For developing countries, one of the main issues has been brain drain, described
as the movement of highly skilled labour from developing to developed
countries. Through brain drain, developing countries lose out in a number of
ways. The main loss is in skilled labour. Developing countries also lose their
investment in the training and education of the migrating skilled labour.
It is likely that brain drain will continue, given the various employment/
emigration schemes that have been introduced in the USA and other
developed countries in order to attract skilled, mainly ICT-trained, labour.
One development that may stop or, in some cases, even reverse this brain
drain, is the increase in the outsourcing of ICT tasks to developing countries.
The most successful examples have been the development of Indias software
industry centres, such as Bangalore and Hyderabad.
At global level, the UN initiated the Digital Diaspora Networks to promote

development through the mobilisation of the technological, entrepreneurial,
and professional expertise and resources of the diasporas in the ICT field.
149
Internet Governance
Policy and institutional aspects
Telecommunication policy issues are closely linked in many respects with

overcoming the digital divide:
P Both private investors and, increasingly, public donors are not ready to
invest in countries without a proper institutional and legal environment
for Internet development.
P The development of national ICT sectors depends on the creation of
necessary regulatory frameworks.
P Telecommunication policy should facilitate the establishment of an
efficient telecommunication market with more competition, lower cost,
and a wider range of services provided.
The creation of an enabling environment is a demanding task, entailing the

gradual de-monopolisation of the telecommunication market, the introduction
of Internet-related laws (covering copyright, privacy, e-commerce, etc.), and
the granting of access to all without political, religious, or other restrictions.
Institutionally speaking, one of the first steps is to establish independent

and professional telecommunication regulatory authorities. Experience from
developed countries shows that solid regulators are a precondition for fast
growth in telecommunication infrastructure. In developing countries, the
development of regulatory authorities is at a very early stage. Regulatory
authorities are generally weak, lack independence, and are often part of a
system in which state-owned telecom operators are influential in regulatory
and political processes.
Another major challenge has been the liberalisation of the telecommunication

market. India and Brazil are usually mentioned as developing countries
where such liberalisation facilitated fast growth of the Internet and the ICT
sector and benefited overall economic growth. Other countries, in particular
least developed ones, found liberalisation of the telecommunication market
to be a major challenge. With the loss of telecommunication monopolies,
governments in those countries lost an important source of budgetary income.
The lower budgets affected all the other sectors of social and economic life.
In some cases, while they lost telecom revenues, these countries did not
harvest the benefits of liberalisation in the guise of lower cost and better
telecom services, mainly because the privatisation of telecommunication
companies was not supplemented by the establishment of effective market and
competition. Such practices led the World Bank to emphasise that countries
should open major market segments to competition prior to, or at the same
150
time as, privatising government-owned operators; in this way, they will reduce
costs faster than those countries that privatise first and introduce competition
later.
151
Internet Governance
Endnotes
1
United Nations General Assembly [UNGA] (2002) Resolution 56/183. World Summit
on the Information Society (A/RES/56/183). Available at http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/
background/resolutions/56_183_unga_2002.pdf [accessed 24 February 2014].
2
United Nations (2000) Millennium Declaration. Available at http://www.un.org/
millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm [accessed 24 February 2014].
3
United Nations (no date) Millennium Development Goals. Available at http://www.
un.org/millenniumgoals/ [accessed 24 February 2014].
4
auDA (no date) Continuation of the Internet Governance Forum. Analysis of the
Note of the Secretary-General. Available at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2010/
contributions/Open%20Consultation%20on%20Enhanced%20Cooperation%20-%20
auDA%20submission.pdf [accessed 24 February 2014].
5
The Economist (2000) A survey of the new economy: Falling through the Net? For the
developing world, IT is more of an opportunity than a threat. Available at http://www.
6
OECD (2001) Understanding the Digital Divide. p. 5. Available at http://www.oecd.org/
internet/ieconomy/1888451.pdf [accessed 24 February 2014].
7
G8 (2001) Digital Opportunities for All: Meeting the Challenge. Report of the Digital
Opportunity Task Force (DOT Force) including a proposal for a Genoa Plan of Action.
Available at http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/summit/2001genoa/dotforce1.html [accessed
24 February 2014].
8
WEF (2013) Global Information Technology Report. Available at http://www.weforum.org/
reports/global-information-technology-report-2013 [accessed 10 August 2014].
9
European Union [EU] (no date) Universal Service. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/
digital-agenda/en/universal-service [accessed 24 February 2014].
10
Internet World Stats (2012) Internet Usage Statistics. The Internet Big Picture. Available at
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm [accessed 24 February 2014].
11
For more information on the Pacific Islands situation, see the Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and Pacific (2014). Available at http://www.unescap.org/about
[accessed 28 March 2014].
12
For a study on the impact of IXPs implementation in Kenya and Nigeria, see Internet
Society (no date) Internet exchange points (IXPs). Available at http://internetsociety.org/
what-we-do/issues/internet-exchange-points-ixps [accessed 24 February 2014].
13
Huston G (2005) Wheres the Money? Internet Interconnection and Financial Settlement
The ISP Column, January 2005, Internet Society, pp. 7-9. Available at http://www.potaroo.
net/ispcol/2005-01/interconn.pdf [accessed 24 February 2014].
152
14
One of the limitations of negotiating this issue between governments is that most
interconnection agreements are concluded between private telecommunication operators.
They are often confidential. ITU recommendations are available at http://www.itu.int/
rec/T-REC-D.50/e [accessed 10 August 2014].
15
India announced the launch of a government-subsidised tablet computer of only $35,
according to BBC News South Asia (2011) India launches Aakash tablet computer priced
at $35. 5 October. Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15180831
153
Internet Governance
154
Section 6
The sociocultural
basket
Internet Governance
156
The sociocultural basket
T
he Internet has made a considerable impact on the social and cultural
fabric of modern society. It is difficult to identify any segment of our
social life that is not affected by it. It introduces new patterns of social
communication, breaks down language barriers, and creates new forms of
creative expressions to name but a few of its effects. Today, the Internet is as
much a social phenomenon as it is a technological one.
Human rights
A basic set of Internet-related human rights includes privacy; freedom of

expression; the right to receive information; various rights protecting cultural,
linguistic, and minority diversity; and the right to education. It is not surprising
that human-rights-related issues have very often been hotly debated in both
WSIS and IGF processes. While human rights are usually explicitly addressed,
they are also involved in cross-cutting issues appearing when dealing with net
neutrality (right to access, freedom of expression, anonymity), cybersecurity
(observing human rights while carrying out cybersecurity and protection
activities), content control, etc. The Snowden revelations of mass surveillance
triggered the diplomatic process on online privacy within the UN General
Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council.
Online vs offline human rights

The principle that the same human rights that people enjoy offline must also
be protected online has been firmly established by the UN General Assembly
and UN Human Rights Council resolutions. The Association for Progressive
Communications (APC) in the Internet Rights Charter argues that Internet-
related human rights are strongly embodied in the UN human rights system
based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other
related instruments.1 Online human rights specificities are related to their
implementation.
157
Internet Governance
Right to access the Internet
Estonia was the first country to legally guarantee the right to access the Internet
through a universal services legislation.2 As of July 2010 all citizens in Finland have
the right to a one-megabit broadband connection.3 Yet the right to Internet access
is argued more in relation to the freedom of expression and information than the
actual speed of Internet connection. And opinions are still nuanced regarding a
firm worldwide recognition of access to the Internet as a human right, since access
involves different valences from access to infrastructure to access to content as
the United Nations Human Rights Council report points out.4
Still, there are reluctant opinions to considering broadband as a basic human right,
when there are people still fighting for clean water, medical attention, and food. Will
this take effort and resources away from addressing more basic human rights?
Activities of the Council of Europe on human rights and the Internet

One of the main players in the field of human rights and the Internet is the
CoE. The CoE is the core institution dealing with pan-European human
rights, with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms5 as its main instrument. Since 2003, the CoE has
adopted several declarations highlighting the importance of human rights
on the Internet.6 The CoE is also the depository of the Convention on
Cybercrime7 as the main global instrument in this field. This may position
it as one of the key institutions in finding the right balance between human
rights and cybersecurity considerations in the future development of the
Internet.
Freedom of expression and the right to seek, receive, and impart

information
Online freedom of expression has featured high on the diplomatic agenda in
the last few years; it is on the agenda of the UN Council of Human Rights.
Freedom of expression on the Internet has also been discussed at numerous
international conferences. The discussion on online freedom of expression
has been a contentious policy area. This is one of the fundamental human
rights, usually appearing in the focus of discussions on content control and
censorship. In the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights,8 freedom of
expression (Article 19) is counterbalanced by the right of the state to limit
freedom of expression for the sake of morality, public order, and general
welfare (Article 29). Thus, both the discussion and implementation of Article
19 must be put in the context of establishing a proper balance between
two needs. This ambiguous situation opens many possibilities for different
interpretations of norms and ultimately different implementations. The
158
controversy around the right balance between Articles 19 and 29 in the real
world is mirrored in discussions about achieving this balance on the Internet.
Freedom of expression is the particular focus of human rights NGOs such

as Amnesty International and Freedom House. Freedom House evaluates
the level of Internet and mobile phone freedom experienced by average users
in sample countries around the world. The latest study notes that Internet
freedom worldwide is in decline, with 34 out of 60 countries experiencing
a negative trajectory, driven by broad surveillance, new laws controlling
web content, and growing arrests of social-media users. However, the study
also notes that activists are becoming more effective at raising awareness of
emerging threats and, in several cases, have helped forestall new repressive
measures.9
Rights of people with disabilities10
According to UN estimates, there are 1 billion people with disabilities in the

world.11 The factors that contribute to increasing this number include war
and destruction by natural as well as human causes; poverty and unhealthy
living conditions; and the absence of knowledge about disability, its causes,
prevention, and treatment.
The Internet provides new possibilities for social inclusion of people with
disabilities. In order to maximise technological possibilities for people with
disabilities, there is a need to develop the necessary Internet governance
and policy framework. The main international instrument in this field is the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,12 adopted by UN in
2006 and signed by 159 countries (April 2014), which establishes rights that
are now in the process of being included in national legislation, which will
make them enforceable.
Awareness of the need for technological solutions that include people with
disabilities is increasing with the work of organisations that teach and foster
support for the disabled community, such as the IGF Dynamic Coalition
on Accessibility and Disability,13 the Internet Society Disability and Special
Needs Chapter,14 and the International Center for Disability Resources on the
Internet.15
159
Internet Governance
The lack of accessibility arises from the gap between the abilities required to
use hardware, software, and content, and the available abilities of a person
with a disability. To narrow this gap there are two directions of policy actions:
P Include accessibility standards in the requirements for the design and
development of equipment, software, and content.
P Foster the availability of accessories in hardware and software that
increase or substitute the functional capabilities of the person.
In the field of Internet governance, the main focus is on web content, as it
is in rapid development and constitutes a kind of infrastructure. Many web
applications do not comply with accessibility standards due to a lack of
awareness or perceived complexity and high costs (which is far from todays
reality). International standards in web accessibility are developed by W3C
within its Web Accessibility Initiative.16
Content policy
One of the main sociocultural issues is content policy, often addressed from
the standpoints of human rights (freedom of expression and the right to
communicate), government (content control), and technology (tools for
content control). Discussions usually focus on three groups of content.
P Content that has a global consensus for its control. Included here
are child pornography, 17 justification of genocide, and incitement or
organisation of terrorist acts.
P Content that is sensitive for particular countries, regions, or ethnic groups
due to their particular religious and cultural values. Globalised online
communication poses challenges for local, cultural, and religious values
in many societies. Most content control in Middle Eastern and Asian
countries is officially justified by the protection of specific cultural values.
This often means that access to pornographic and gambling websites is
blocked.18
P Political censorship on the Internet. Reporters without Borders issues
annual reports on freedom of information on the Internet. Till 2012
the report used to list countries that run censorship and surveillance
programmes. The 2014 Report focuses on institutions that run censorship
and surveillance activities.19
160
How content policy is conducted

An la carte menu for content policy contains the following legal and
technical options, which are used in different combinations.
Governmental filtering of content

Governments that filter access to the content usually create an Internet Index
of websites blocked for citizen access. Technically speaking, filtering utilises
mainly router-based IP blocking, proxy servers, and DNS redirection.20
Filtering of content occurs in many countries. In addition to the countries
usually associated with these practices, such as China, Saudi Arabia, and
Singapore, other countries are increasingly adopting the practice.
Private rating and filtering systems

Faced with the potential risk of the disintegration of the Internet through the
development of various national barriers (filtering systems), W3C and other
like-minded institutions made proactive moves proposing the implementation
of user-controlled rating and filtering systems.21 In these systems, filtering
mechanisms can be implemented by software on personal computers or at
server level controlling Internet access.22
Content filtering based on geographical location

Another technical solution related to content is geo-location software, which
filters access to particular web content according to the geographic or national
origin of users. The Yahoo! case was important in this respect, since the
group of experts involved, including Vint Cerf, indicated that in 7090% of
cases Yahoo! could determine whether sections of one of its websites hosting
Nazi memorabilia were accessed from France.23 This assessment helped
the court come to a final decision, which requested Yahoo! to filter access
from France to Nazi memorabilia. Since the 2000 Yahoo! case, the precision
of geo-location has increased further through the development of highly
sophisticated geo-location software.
Content control through search engines

The bridge between the end-user and Web content is usually a search engine.
The filtering of searches was a source of tension between Google and Chinese
authorities24 which culminated with the decision taken by Google in January
2010 to redirect searches performed on Google.cn to its Hong Kong-based
servers. However, later that year, Google reversed its decision under pressure
of refusal by the Chinese government to renew its Internet Content Provider
licence.25
161
Internet Governance
The risk of filtering of search results, however, doesnt come only from the
governmental sphere; commercial interests may interfere as well, more or
less obviously or pervasively. Commentators have started to question the role
of search engines (particularly Google, considering its dominant position in
users preferences) in mediating user access to information and to warn about
their power of influencing users knowledge and preferences.26
Web 2.0 challenge: users as contributors

With the development of Web 2.0 platforms blogs, documentsharing
websites, forums, and virtual worlds the difference between the user and the
creator has blurred. Internet users can create large portions of Web content, such
as blog posts, videos, and photo galleries. Identifying, filtering, and labelling
improper websites is becoming a complex activity. While automatic filtering
techniques for texts are well developed, automatic recognition, filtering, and
labelling of visual content are still in the early development phase.27
One approach, used on a few occasions by Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, and

Tunisia, is to block access to YouTube and Twitter throughout the country.
This maximalist approach, however, results in unobjectionable content,
including educational material, being blocked. During the Arab Spring events,
governments took the extreme measure of cutting Internet access completely
in order to hinder communication via social network platforms.28
The need for an appropriate legal framework

The legal vacuum in the field of content policy provides governments
with high levels of discretion in deciding what content should be blocked.
Since content policy is a sensitive issue for every society, the adoption of
legal instruments is vital. National regulation in the field of content policy
may provide better protection for human rights and resolve the sometimes
ambiguous roles of ISPs, enforcement agencies, and other players. In recent
years, many countries have introduced content policy legislation.
International initiatives
At international level, the main initiatives arise in European countries with
strong legislation in the field of hate speech, including anti-racism and anti-
Semitism. European regional institutions have attempted to impose these
rules on cyberspace. The primary legal instrument addressing the issue of
content is the CoE Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime,29
concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature
committed through computer systems (2003). On a more practical level,
the EU introduced the EU Safer Internet programme which includes the
following main points:
162
P Setting up a European network of hotlines to report illegal content.

P Encouraging self-regulation.
P Developing content rating, filtering, and benchmark filtering.
P Developing software and services.
P Raising awareness of the safer use of the Internet.30
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is also

active in this field. Since 2003, it has organised a number of conferences and
meetings with a particular focus on freedom of expression and the potential
misuses of the Internet (e.g. racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic propaganda).
The issues
Content control vs freedom of expression

When it comes to content control, the other side of the coin is very often
restriction of freedom of expression. This is especially important in the USA,
where the First Amendment guarantees broad freedom of expression, even the
right to publish Nazi-related and similar materials.
Freedom of expression largely shapes the US position in the international

debate on content-related issues on the Internet. For example, while the USA
has signed the Cybercrime Convention, it cannot sign the Additional Protocol
to this convention, dealing with hate speech and content control. The question
of freedom of expression was also brought up in the context of the Yahoo!
court case. In its international initiatives, the USA will not step beyond the
line which may endanger freedom of expression as stipulated in the First
Amendment.
Illegal offline illegal online

As with human rights, the dominant view is that rules of the offline world
apply to the Internet when it comes to content policy.
One of the arguments of the cyber approach to Internet regulation is

that quantity (intensity of communication, number of messages) makes a
qualitative difference. In this view, the problem of hate speech is not that no
regulation against it has been enacted, but that the sharing and spreading
through the Internet makes it a different kind of legal problem. More
individuals are exposed and it is difficult to enforce existing rules. Therefore,
the difference that the Internet brings is mainly related to problems of
enforcement, not to the rules themselves.
163
Internet Governance
The effectiveness of content control

In discussions on Internet policy, one of the key arguments is that the
decentralised nature of the Internet can bypass censorship. In countries with
government-directed content control, technically gifted users have found a
way around such control. Nonetheless, content control is not intended for this
small group of technically gifted users; it is aimed at the broader population.
Lessig provides a concise statement of this problem: A regulation need not be
absolutely effective to be sufficiently effective.31
Who should be responsible for content policy?

The main players in the area of content control are parliaments and
governments. They prescribe what content should be controlled and how.
ISPs, as Internet gateways, are commonly held responsible for implementation
of content filtering, either according to government prescriptions or to
self-regulation (at least in regard to issues of broad consensus, such as child
pornography). Some groups of users, such as parents, are keen to introduce
a more efficient content policy to protect children. Various rating initiatives
help parents to find child-friendly content. New versions of Internet browser
software usually include many filtering options. Private companies and
universities also perform content control. In some cases, content is controlled
through software packages; for example, the Scientology movement has
distributed a software package, Scienositter, to members, preventing access to
websites critical of Scientology.32
Education
The Internet has opened new possibilities for education. Various e-learning,
online learning, and distance learning initiatives have been introduced; their
main aim is to use the Internet as a medium for the delivery of courses.
While it cannot replace traditional education, online learning provides new
possibilities for learning, especially when constraints of time and space impede
physical attendance in class.
Traditionally, education has been governed by national institutions. The

accreditation of educational institutions, the recognition of qualifications,
and quality assurance are all governed at national level. However, cross-
border education requires the development of new governance regimes. Many
international initiatives aim at filling the governance gap, especially in areas
such as quality assurance and the recognition of academic degrees.
164
The issues
WTO and education

One controversial issue in the WTO negotiations is the interpretation of
Articles I (3)b and (3)c of GATS,33 which specify exceptions from the free
trade regime for government-provided services. According to one view,
supported mainly by the USA and the UK, these exceptions should be
treated narrowly, de facto enabling free trade in higher education. This view
is predominantly governed by interests of the English-speaking educational
sector to gain global market coverage in education, and has received
considerable opposition from many countries.34
The forthcoming debate, likely to develop within the context of the WTO
and other international organisations, will focus on the dilemma of education
as a commodity or a public good. If education is considered a commodity,
the WTOs free trade rules will be implemented in this field as well. A public
goods approach, on the other hand, would preserve the current model of
education in which public universities receive special status as institutions of
importance for national culture.
Quality assurance
The availability of online learning delivery systems and easy entry into this
market has opened the question of quality assurance. A focus on online
delivery can overlook the importance of the quality of materials and didactics.
A variety of possible difficulties can endanger the quality of education.
One is the easy entry of new, mainly commercially driven, educational
institutions, which frequently have few of the necessary academic and
didactical capabilities. Another problem of quality assurance is that the simple
transfer of existing paper-based materials to an online medium does not take
advantage of the didactic potential of the new medium. This aspect prompted
education organisations to start to develop standards and guidelines for
evaluating the design and the content of lectures delivered online.35
The recognition of academic degrees and the transfer of credits

Recognition of degrees has become particularly relevant within the online
learning environment. When it comes to online learning, the main challenge
is the recognition of degrees beyond the regional context, mainly at global
level.
The EU has developed a regulatory framework with the European Credit

Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS).36 The Asia-Pacific region has
introduced its own regional model for the exchange of students and a related
165
Internet Governance
credit system the University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP)
programme.37
The standardisation of online learning

The early phase of online learning development was characterised by rapid
development and high diversity of materials, in the sense of platforms,
content, and didactics. However, there is a need to develop common standards
in order to facilitate the easier exchange of online courses and introduce a
certain standard of quality.
Most standardisation is performed in the USA by private and professional

institutions. Other, including international, initiatives are on a smaller scale.
Child safety online38
Children have always been vulnerable to victimisation. Most of the issues

related to Internet safety are primarily concerned with youth, especially
minors. Yet, the blurred lines commonly become sharper when it comes
to child safety. Objectionable content is clearly noted as improper and
inappropriate, and counted to include a wide variety of materials including
pornography, hate, and violence content, and content hazardous to health,
such as suicide advice, anorexia, and the like.
The issues
Cyber-bullying
Harassment is a particular challenge when minors are targeted. Minors are
vulnerable when using the numerous communication tools such as messaging,
chat-rooms, or social networks. Children can easily become victims of cyber-
bullying, most often from their peers using ICT combining mobile phone
cameras, file-sharing systems, and social networks as a convenient tool.
Abuse and sexual exploitation

Harmful conduct targeting minors can be particularly dangerous when
conducted by adults. The masked identity is one of the most frequent
approaches undertaken by paedophiles on the Internet while pretending
to be peers, these online predators collect information and steadily groom
the child, easily managing to win the childs trust, even aiming to establish
a physical meeting. The virtual conduct thereby transforms to real contact
166
and can go as far as the abuse and exploitation of children, paedophilia, the
solicitation of minors for sexual purposes, and even child trafficking.
Violent games
The impact of violent games on the behaviour of young people is being widely
debated. The most infamous games involve sophisticated weapons (showing
features of real weapons, and/or other fantasy features) and bloodshed, and
are usually tagged as stress eliminators. The top 10 best-selling games for
different hardware platforms, including Microsoft Xbox, Nintendo DS,
Nintendo Wii, PC, Playstation, were dominated by action/violent games.39
Addressing the challenges

The major challenge that educators and parents are facing in protecting
children online is the fact that the digital natives are much more
knowledgeable in how to use ICT they know more than their parents, yet
they understand less. Close cooperation between peers parents, educators,
and the community is most important for developing initiatives for
safeguarding children in computer-mediated environments.
To raise awareness among the stakeholders, the European Commission has

launched the InSafe project40 as a European network of e-safety awareness
nodes, providing awareness-building materials for parents and educators in
several languages free for download and dissemination. The Polish media
campaign on cyber-bullying resulted in sets of video clips and an e-learning
course on Internet safety for kids. The NetSafe initiative in New Zealand,
founded in 1998, is among the first national initiatives on Internet safety
which gathers key stakeholders including ministries, the business sector, and
the media.
A much-needed step beyond awareness building and training of youth,

parents, and educators is capacity building in the area of Internet safety,
targeted at the multistakeholder composition of policymakers: government
officials, business entities, media, academia, think-tanks, and non-
governmental organisations, etc. Various international organisations are
discussing possible models of cooperation in establishing such programmes,
among them the CoE, the ITU, CPI, and DiploFoundation.
On a longer time scale, educational curriculum updates are also needed, to

include in-school programmes on Internet safety issues such as protecting
personal privacy and security, minding personal reputations and those of
others, ethics, reporting abuse, transferring real-life morals and skills to the
167
Internet Governance
online world, etc. Several such initiatives exist worldwide, such as Cyber
Smart!,41 iKeepSafe,42 i-Safe,43 and NetSmartz.44
Synchronised national and international legal and policy mechanisms are

an indispensable component as well. One example is the successful pan-
European Prague Declaration for a Safer Internet for Children adopted
at the Ministerial Conference (Prague, April 2009).45 The ITUs Global
Cybersecurity Agenda (GCA)46 presents the Child Online Protection (COP)
initiative as its integral part. There are many other international forums where
child protection is a debated issue high on the agenda, including the IGF with
its Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety.
International cooperation in the field of child protection has been successful

for a long time in the area of international emergency and hotlines. Some of
the successful initiatives are:
P Official cooperation COSPOL Internet Related Child Abusive Material
Project (CIRCAMP) initiated by the European Chief of Police Task
Force.
P Work of NGOs in cooperation with governments such as Internet Watch
Foundation, Perverted Justice Foundation, The International Centre for
Missing & Exploited Children, ECPAT International, Save the Children,
and Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.
P Public-private partnerships such as the cooperation between Norway
Telecom and the Norway Police.
Multilingualism and cultural diversity
Since its early days, the Internet has been a predominantly English-language
medium. According to some statistics, approximately 56% of Web content is
in English,47 whereas 75% of the worlds population does not speak English.48
This situation has prompted many countries to take concerted action to
promote multilingualism and to protect cultural diversity. The promotion of
multilingualism is not only a cultural issue; it is directly related to the need
for the further development of the Internet.49 If the Internet is to be used by
wider parts of society and not just national elites, content must be accessible in
more languages.
168
The issues
Non-Roman alphabets
The promotion of multilingualism requires technical standards that facilitate
the use of non-Roman alphabets. One of the early initiatives related to the
multilingual use of computers was undertaken by the Unicode Consortium a
non-profit institution that develops standards to facilitate the use of character
sets for different languages.50 In their turn, ICANN and the IETF took an
important step in promoting Internationalised Domain Names (IDN). IDN
facilitate the use of domain names written in Chinese, Arabic, and other non-
Latin alphabets.
Machine translation
Many efforts have been made to improve machine translation. Given its policy
of translating all official activities into the languages of all member states,
the EU has supported various development activities in the field of machine
translation. Although major breakthroughs have been made, limitations
remain.
Appropriate government frameworks

The promotion of multilingualism requires appropriate governance
frameworks. The first element of governance regimes has been provided by
organisations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO), which has instigated many initiatives focusing
on multilingualism, including the adoption of important documents, such
as the Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity.51 Another key promoter
of multilingualism is the EU, since it embodies multilingualism as one of its
basic political and working principles.52
The evolution and wide usage of Web 2.0 tools, allowing ordinary users to
become contributors and content developers, offers an opportunity for greater
availability of local content in a wide variety of languages. Nevertheless,
without a wider framework for the promotion of multilingualism, the
opportunity might end up creating an even wider gap, since users feel the
pressure of using the common language in order to reach a broader audience.
Global public goods
The concept of global public goods can be linked to many aspects of Internet
governance. The most direct connections are found in areas of access to the
169
Internet Governance
Internet infrastructure, protection of knowledge developed through Internet

interaction, protection of public technical standards, and access to online
education.
Private companies predominantly run the Internet infrastructure. One of

the challenges is the harmonisation of the private ownership of the Internet
infrastructure with the status of the Internet as a global public good. National
laws provide the possibility of private ownership being restricted by certain
public requirements, including providing equal rights to all potential users and
not interfering with the transported content.
One of the key features of the Internet is that through worldwide interaction
of users, new knowledge and information are produced. Considerable
knowledge has been generated through exchanges on mailing lists, social
networks, and blogs. With the exception of creative commons,53 there is
no mechanism to facilitate the legal use of such knowledge. Left in a legal
uncertainty, it is made available for modification and commercialisation. This
common pool of knowledge, an important basis of creativity, is at risk of being
depleted. The more Internet content is commercialised, the less spontaneous
exchanges may become. This could lead towards reduced creative interaction.
The concept of global public goods, combined with initiatives such as creative
commons, could provide solutions that would both protect the current
Internet creative environment and preserve Internet-generated knowledge for
future generations.
With regard to standardisation, almost continuous efforts are made to replace

public standards with private and proprietary ones. This was the case with
Microsoft (through browsers and ASP) and Sun Microsystems (through Java).
The Internet standards (mainly TCP/IP) are open and public. The Internet
governance regime should ensure protection of the main Internet standards as
global public goods.
The issues
The balance between private and public interests

One of the underlying challenges of the future development of the Internet is
to strike a balance between private and public interests. The question is how
to provide the private sector with a proper commercial environment while
ensuring the development of the Internet as a global public good. In many
cases it is not a zero-sum game but a win-win situation. Google and many
170
other Web 2.0 companies have tried to develop business models which both
provide income and enable the creative development of the Internet.
Protecting the Internet as a global public good54

Some solutions can be developed based on existing economic and legal
concepts. For example, economic theory has a well-developed concept of
public goods, which was extended at international level to global public
goods. A public good has two critical properties: non-rivalrous consumption
and non-excludability. The former stipulates that the consumption of one
individual does not detract from that of another; the latter, that it is difficult,
if not impossible, to exclude an individual from enjoying the good. Access to
Web-based materials and many other Internet services fulfils both criteria.
171
Internet Governance
Endnotes
1
The APC Internet Rights Charter includes Internet access for all; freedom of expression
and association; access to knowledge; shared learning and creation free and open source
software and technology development; privacy, surveillance and encryption; governance of
the Internet; awareness, protection and realisation of rights. Available at http://www.apc.
org/en/node/5677 [accessed 10 August 2014].
2
Borg-Psaila S (2011) Right to access the Internet: the countries and the laws that proclaim
it. Available at http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/right-access-internet-countries-and-
laws-proclaim-it [accessed 10 August 2014].
3
CNN Tech (2010) First nation makes broadband access a legal right. Available at http://
articles.cnn.com/2010-07-01/tech/finland.broadband_1_broadband-access-internet-
access-universal-service?_s=PM:TECH [accessed 10 August 2014].
4
UN General Assembly (2011) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue. Available at
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_
en.pdf [accessed 10 August 2014]. For a discussion of the UN report see Wagner A (2012)
Is Internet access a human right? The Guardian. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/
law/2012/jan/11/is-internet-access-a-human-right [accessed 10 August 2014].
5
Council of Europe (2010) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. Available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/
html/005.htm [accessed 10 August 2014].
6
The Council of Europe adopted the following main declarations of relevance for human
rights and the Internet: The Declaration on Freedom of Communication on the Internet
(28 May 2003). Available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=37031 [accessed 10
August 2014]; The Declaration of Human Rights and the Rule of Law in the Information
Society (13 May 2005). Available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=849061
[accessed 10 August 2014]. The Declaration on the Digital Agenda for Europe (29
September 2010). Available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Decl%2829.09.201
0_1%29&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original [accessed 10 August 2014].
7
coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/185.htm [accessed 30 April 2014].
8
United Nations (no date) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available at http://
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [accessed 30 April 2014].
9
Freedom House (2013) Freedom on the Net. A Global Assessment of Internet and Digital
Media. Available at http://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2013#.
Uz7L3VcZes1 [accessed 4 April 2014].
10
Valuable comments and input were provided by Jorge Plano.
11
UN Enable (no date) Factsheet on Persons with Disabilities. Available at http://www.
un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=18 [accessed 4 April 2014].
172
12
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Available at http://www.un.org/
disabilities/default.asp?navid=14&pid=150 [accessed 30 April 2014].
13
IGF, Dynamic coalition on accessibility and disability. Available at http://www.
intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/dynamic-coalitions/80-accessibility-and-disability
[accessed 30 April 2014].
14
ISOC Disability and Special Needs Chapter. Available at http://www.isocdisab.org/
15
ICDRI. Available at http://www.icdri.org/ [accessed 30 April 2014].
16
WAI. Available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [accessed 30 April 2014].
17
Zick T (1999) Congress, the Internet, and the intractable pornography problem: the Child
Online Protection Act of 1998, Creighton Law Review, 32, pp. 1147, 1153, 1201. Available
at http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1873&context=facpubs
18
For a discussion of Internet gambling, see: Girdwood S (2002) Place your bets ... on the
keyboard: Are Internet casinos legal? Campbell Law Review 25. Available at
http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1398&context=clr
19
Reporters without Borders (2014). Enemies of the Internet. Available at http://12mars.rsf.
org/wpcontent/uploads/EN_RAPPORT_INTERNET_BD.pdf [accessed 10 August
2014].
20
The OpenNet Initiative has documented network filtering of the Internet by national
governments in over forty countries worldwide. See Noman H and York J (2011) West
Censoring East: The Use of Western Technologies by Middle East Censors, 2010-2011 OpenNet
Initiative Bulletin. Available at http://opennet.net/west-censoring-east-the-use-
western-technologies-middle-east-censors-2010-2011 [accessed 2 April 2014].
21
PICS has now been replaced by POWDER: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/pics_
superseded.html. Details about POWDER are available at http://www.w3.org/
standards/techs/powder#w3c_all [accessed 10 August 2014].
22
For an overview of available filtering types, see the National Academy of Sciences dedicated
page available at http://www.nap.edu/netsafekids/pro_fm_filter.html [accessed 2 April
2014].
23
Although Vint Cerf participated in the panel, he objected to the final report, which he
said did not focus on the flaws or the larger implications of installing online gates. Source:
Guernsey L (2001) Welcome to the world wide web, passport, please? New York Times, 15
March 2001. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/15/technology/welcome-
to-the-web-passport-please.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm [accessed 2 April 2014].
24
Knight W (2002) On-off access for Google in China. New Scientist Internet edition, 13
September. Available at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2795-onoff-access-
for#.U-fUu2PCfMU [accessed 8 August 2014].
25
Drummond D (2010) An update on China, 28 June 2010. The Official Google Blog.
Available at http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/update-on-china.html [accessed
2 April 2014].
173
Internet Governance
26
A good starting point to this debate is Mary Murphys blog post on DiploFoundations
Internet Governance blog channel and the comments raised upon: Google...stop thinking for
me! Available at http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/googlestop-thinking-me [accessed 10
April 2012].
27
Jiang Y (2011) Consumer Video Understanding: A Benchmark Database and An
Evaluation of Human and Machine Performance ICMR11. April 17-20, Trento, Italy.
Available at http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~yjiang/publication/icmr11-consumervideo.
pdf [accessed 2 April 2012].
28
Crete-Nishihata M and York J (2011) Egypts Internet Blackout: Extreme Example of
Just-in-time Blocking. OpenNet Initiative. Available at http://opennet.net/blog/2011/01/
egypt%E2%80%99s-internet-blackout-extreme-example-just-time-blocking [accessed
2 April 2014].
29
Council of Europe (2003) Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime,
concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through
computer systems. Available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/189.
htm [accessed 30 April 2014].
30
EU Information Society (no date) Safer Internet action plan. Available at http://ec.europa.
eu/information_society/activities/sip/index_en.htm [accessed 8 August 2014].
31
Lessig L (1996) The Zones of Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review 48 pp. 1403, 1405.
32
Steve A (no date) Church of Scientology censors net access for members. Available at
http://www.xenu.net/archive/events/censorship [accessed 2 April 2012].
33
GATS. Available at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/
gats_01_e.htm#article1A [accessed 30 April 2014].
34
For a comprehensive study of the interpretation of GATS related to higher education see
Tilak J (2011) Trade in higher education: The role of the General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS). UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris. Available at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002149/214997e.pdf [accessed 3 April 2014].
35
For a sample list of organisations and works dealing with recommendations and standards
for e-learning see Bates T (2010) E-learning quality assurance standards, organizations
and research. Available at http://www.tonybates.ca/2010/08/15/e-learning-quality-
assurance-standards-organizations-and-research/ [accessed 3 April 2014].
36
European Commission (no date) ECTS. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/
tools/ects_en.htm [accessed 3 April 2014].
37
UMAP (no date) UMAP. Available at http://www.umap.org/en/cms/detail.php?id=106
38
This text was prepared by Vladimir Radunovic for the advanced thematic course on
Cybersecurity (Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme DiploFoundation).
39
Reilly J (2012) The Best-Selling U.S. Games Of 2011. gameinformer. Available at http://www.
gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/01/12/these-are-the-10-best-selling-u-s-
games-in-2011.aspx [accessed 12 April 2014].
174
40
Insafe. Available at http://www.saferinternet.org/web/guest/home [accessed 30 April
2014].
41
CyberSmart. Available at http://www.cybersmart.org/ [accessed 30 April 2014].
42
IKeepSafe. Available at http://www.ikeepsafe.org/ [accessed 30 April 2014].
43
I-Safe. Available at http://www.isafe.org/ [accessed 30 April 2014].
44
NetSmartz. Available at http://www.netsmartz.org/Parents [accessed 30 April 2014].
45
EU2009. Prague Declaration for a Safer Internet for Children. Available at http://
ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/events/prague_decl.pdf [accessed
30 April 2014].
46
ITU (no date) Global Cybersecurity Agenda. Available at http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/
cybersecurity/gca/ [accessed 30 April 2014].
47
W3Techs (2014) Usage of content languages for websites. Available at http://w3techs.
com/technologies/overview/content_language/all [accessed 3 April 2014].
48
British Council (no date) How many people speak English. Available at http://www.
britishcouncil.org/learning-faq-the-english-language.htm [accessed 10 August 2014].
49
For more information regarding multilingualism on the Internet please consult the
following study: AlShatti Q, Aquirre R and Cretu V (2007) Multilingualism the
communication bridge. DiploFoundations Internet Governance Research Project, 2006/2007.
Available at http://textus.diplomacy.edu/thina/TxFsetW.asp?tURL=http://textus.
diplomacy.edu/thina/txgetxdoc.asp?IDconv=3241 [accessed 3 April 2014].
50
Unicode Consortium. Available at http://unicode.org/ [accessed 30 April 2014].
51
UNESCO (2001) Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Available at http://
portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION=201.html [accessed 30 April 2012].
52
European Commission (no date) Languages. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/languages/
index_en.htm [accessed 10 August 2014].
53
Creative Commons is a non-profit organisation that develops, supports, and stewards
legal and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, and innovation.
Available at http://creativecommons.org/ [accessed 3 April 2014].
54
For more information regarding the Internet as a global public good, please consult the
following study: Seiiti A and Psaila S (2006) The Protection of the Public Interest with regards
to the Internet. DiploFoundations Internet Governance Research Project, 2005/2006.
Available at http://archive1.diplomacy.edu/poolbin.asp?IDPool=128 [accessed 3 April
2014].
175
Internet Governance
176
Section 7
Internet
governance
actors
Internet Governance
178
Internet governance actors
Internet governance
actors
A
t the moment, Internet governance involves a wide variety of actors, or
stakeholders, as they are often called. Internet actors include national
governments, international organisations, the business sector, civil
society, and the technical community (as specified in the Article 49 of the
2005 Tunis WSIS Declaration). While multistakeholderism is adopted as a
principle, the main debate is on the specific role of each actor, focusing mainly
on the relation between state and non-state actors.
What is the difference between Internet governance and other global

policy processes?
In Internet governance, governments had to enter an already existing non-

governmental regime, built around the IETF, ISOC, and ICANN. In other policy areas
(e.g. climate change, trade, migration), it has been the other way around. Inter-
governmental negotiations had to open gradually to non-governmental actors. Since
WSIS 2003, most of the time and energy in Internet governance has been dedicated
to convergence of non-governmental and traditional diplomatic regimes. This
convergence has also been the source of the main controversies.
Governments
The last decade since the introduction of Internet governance to the

global diplomatic agenda in 2003 has been a learning process for many
governments. Even for big and wealthy countries, dealing with Internet
governance issues has posed numerous challenges, such as management of the
multidisciplinary nature of Internet governance (i.e., technological, economic,
and social aspects) and involvement of a wide variety of actors. Many
governments have had to simultaneously train officials, develop policy, and
actively participate in various international Internet meetings.
179
Internet Governance
National coordination
In 2003, at the beginning of the WSIS process, most countries addressed
Internet governance issues through telecommunication ministries, usually those
that had been responsible for relations with the ITU. Gradually, as they realised
that Internet governance was more than wires and cables, governments started
involving officials from other ministries, such as those of foreign affairs, culture,
media, and justice.
The principal challenge for many governments has been to develop a strategy
to gather and effectively coordinate support from non-state actors such as
universities, private companies, and NGOs that often have the necessary
expertise to deal with Internet governance issues. In the years after WSIS 2003,
most big and medium-sized G20 countries have managed to develop sufficient
institutional capacity to follow global Internet governance negotiations. Some
of them, such as Brazil, have developed an innovative national structure for
following the Internet governance debate, involving telecom ministries, the
diplomatic service, the business sector, civil society, and academia.1
Policy coherence
Given the multidisciplinary nature of Internet governance and the great
diversity of actors and policy forums, it is particularly challenging to achieve
policy coherence. For example, the question of data protection and privacy is
addressed from human rights, trade, standardisation, and security perspectives,
among others. Achieving policy coherence in the field of Internet governance
requires a flexible form of policy coordination, including horizontal
communication between different ministries, the business sector, and other
actors.
Cable geo-strategy and policy (in)coherence
The Anglo-French Entente2 was established in 1904. By establishing close

cooperation with Germany, however, the French Telegraph Ministry did not follow the
countrys foreign policy. The main reason for this was to reduce British dominance
in the global cable geo-strategy while laying new telegraph cables in cooperation
with Germany. French historian Charles Lesage made the following comment
on this policy (in)coherence: The prolonged disagreement between the general
principles of French diplomacy and the procedures of the telegraphic policies come,
I believe, from the fact that in this country, each ministry has its own foreign policy:
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has one, the Ministry of Finance has another.... The
Postal and Telegraph Administration also has, from time to time, a foreign policy; as
it so happened, in these past few years, without being entirely hostile to England, it
demonstrated a strong inclination to Germany.3
180
Apart from the management challenge, the achievement of policy coherence is

usually limited by the existence of competing policy interests. This is especially
true in countries with well-developed and diversified Internet economies.
For example, net neutrality is one of the issues in which the US government
has become involved in a delicate balancing act between the Internet
industry (Google, Facebook ,Yahoo!) which supports net neutrality, and the
telecommunication/entertainment sector (Verizon and AT&T, Hollywood
lobby), which sees net neutrality as an obstacle
to developing a new business model based on,
discussion on network
for example, faster Internet(s) for delivery of
neutrality
multimedia content.
The importance of Geneva-based permanent missions

For many governments, their permanent missions in Geneva have been
important, if not vital, players in the WSIS and Internet governance processes.
Most activities took place in Geneva, home to the ITU, which had the main
role in the WSIS processes. The first WSIS took place in Geneva in 2003,
where all but one of the preparatory meetings was held, keeping permanent
missions based there directly involved. Currently, the IGF Secretariat is based
in Geneva and most IGF preparatory meetings are held in the city.
For large and developed countries, the permanent missions were part of the
broad network of institutions and individuals that dealt with the WSIS and
Internet governance processes. For small and developing countries, permanent
missions were the primary and, in some cases, the only players in the processes.
Internet governance issues have added to the agenda of the usually small and
over-stretched missions of developing countries. In many cases, the same
diplomat had to undertake the tasks associated with WSIS along with other
issues such as human rights, health, trade, and labour.
Positions of governments
United States
The Internet was developed as part of a US-government-sponsored scientific
project. From the origin of the Internet until today, the US government
has been involved in Internet governance through various departments and
agencies, initially, the Department of Defense, later the National Science
Foundation, and most recently the Department of Commerce. The FCC has
also played an important role in creating the Internet regulatory framework.
One constant of US government involvement has been its hands-off approach,

usually described as a distant custodian. It sets the framework while leaving
181
Internet Governance
the governance of the Internet to those directly working with it, mainly the
technical community. However, the US government has intervened more
directly on a few occasions, as occurred in the mid-1990s when the CORE
project could have moved the root server and management of the core Internet
infrastructure from the USA to Geneva. This process was stopped by a famous
(at least in the history of the Internet) diplomatic note sent by US Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright to the ITU Secretary General.4 In parallel to
stopping the CORE initiative, the US government initiated consultations that
resulted in the establishment of ICANN.
In 2009, the US Department of Commerce issued the Affirmation of

Commitments5 aimed at withdrawing from the supervisory function of
ICANN. The next phase in this process started on 14 March 2014 when the
NTIA initiated the process of reviewing the special relationship between the
US Department of Commerce and ICANN.6 The core of this relationship
supervision of the IANA function should be passed from the US
government to some other global arrangement by 30 September 2015. The
NTIA announcement sets out requirements that supervision of the IANA
function cannot be passed to an inter-governmental body. The outcome of this
process will influence the future role of the United States in the global Internet
governance.
European Union
The European Union has a unique mix of hard and soft digital power for
forging future Internet governance compromise. The EUs hard digital power
is based on the attraction of a wealthy 500-million-person market with high
Internet penetration (73%).7 As the concentration of the Internet industry
lobby in Brussels shows, this type of hard power matters. By negotiating with
the EU on anti-monopoly and data protection issues, Google and Facebook,
among others, negotiate with the rest of the world (the EUs arrangements
with the Internet industry often inspire other countries and regions to take
similar action). In a situation when, for example, Google controls more
than 90% of the European search market, the EU is the only international
institution that could effectively address the risk of Googles market monopoly.8
The EUs soft digital power is based on some sort of digital aikido diplomacy
of turning weaknesses into strengths. Namely, the EU does not have any major
Internet company since Skype was bought by Microsoft. Paradoxically, this
weakness could be turned into a strength in Internet governance.
Without the need to protect the economic interests of the Internet industry,
the EU has more freedom to promote and protect public interests (user rights,
inclusion, network neutrality). In this way, the EU can become the guardian of
182
Internet users, and the promoter of an enabling environment for the growth of
the EUs (and the worlds) Internet industry. The EU can achieve both ethical
and strategic goals, which is not often the case in international politics.
The EUs approach of developing different issue-based alliances has begun

to emerge. At WCIT-12, Europe supported the USA; while in discussions
about ICANNs status, the EU often allies itself with BRICS and developing
countries. On data protection and privacy, the EUs position is close to the
position of the Latin American countries. Switzerland and Norway have a
close position to the EU on most Internet governance issues.
Brazil
Brazil has been one of the most active countries in global digital politics.
As a democratic and developing country with a vibrant digital space, Brazil
has great potential to facilitate a compromise between the two camps in the
Internet governance debate (inter-governmental and non-governmental).
This role became obvious in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations. Brazil
took strong diplomatic action. In her speech at the 68th Session of the United
Nations General Assembly, Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff made this
request: [t]he United Nations must play a leading role to regulate the conduct
of states with regard to these technologies. In addition, she defined the
surveillance as a breach of international law and a case of disrespect to the
national sovereignty of Brazil.9 When it seemed that Brazil was insisting on
an inter-governmental approach, President Rousseff shifted back to the middle
of the policy spectrum by proposing to co-organise a NETmundial aimed at
further developing multistakeholder Internet governance. Brazil had a complex
role to play where its main aim was to ensure a successful outcome of the
meeting.
On the substantive side, as an example, Brazil did not succeed in achieving

stronger language in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement10 on net
neutrality and mass surveillance, two priority areas for Brazilian Internet
diplomacy. In addition, Brazil faced distancing of some core BRICS partners:
Russia openly opposed the NETmundial statement; India expressed serious
concerns and delayed adoption of the outcome statement; and China and
South Africa kept a very low profile. It remains to be seen if Brazils high
convergence capacity to foster a middle ground in Internet governance
negotiations will be maintained in the post-NETmundial phase.
China
With the highest number of Internet users, China is an important player
in Internet governance. It has been balancing digital politics between the
economy-driven free communication with the rest of the world and politically
183
Internet Governance
driven filtered access to the Internet for Chinese users. The protection of
sovereignty as a cornerstone of Chinese foreign policy is also mirrored in
cyberspace. Adam Segal, reporting on a speech by Lu Wei, Minister of Chinas
State Internet Information Office, to the Second China-South Korea Internet
Roundtable, quotes Wei: Just as the seventeenth century saw the extension
of national sovereignty over parts of the sea, and the twentieth over airspace,
national sovereignty is now being extended to cyberspace [] but cyberspace
cannot live without sovereignty.11
China achieved a high level of digital sovereignty by banning and/or restricting

access to the Chinese market for foreign Internet companies (Facebook,
Google, Twitter) and developing Chinese social media companies such as
RenRen and Sina Weibo. Most of the data belonging to Chinese individuals
and institutions are stored on servers in China. In foreign digital politics, China
supports an inter-governmental approach. However, it keeps a low profile,
leaving Russia and other countries to lead the inter-governmental initiatives in
global forums.
India
India is one of the swing countries in the Internet governance debate
with diverse sometimes conflicting positions. Indias complex Internet
governance policy reflects the complexity of its national digital policy-making.
It has one of the most diverse and vibrant civil society scenes in global Internet
governance. Its diplomatic service inclines towards an inter-governmental
approach to Internet governance. Its business sector is closer to a non-
governmental approach to Internet governance. This dichotomy has created
some surprising moves. For example, India proposed the establishment of the
UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) as a way to achieve inter-
governmental oversight of critical Internet resources. It shifted to the other
side of the Internet policy spectrum, however, by siding with the USA and
other developed countries at WCIT-12. India did not sign the amended ITRs
and departed from the position of the G77 countries. This surprising move was
explained by the considerable lobbying power of the Indian ICT industry.
Russia
Russia has been the most vocal and consistent promoter of an inter-
governmental approach to Internet governance. At WCIT-12, Russia tried to
include the Internet in the ITUs work through the ITRs. It also has a strong
focus on cybersecurity through the work of the first committee of the UN
General Assembly.
184
Small states
The complexity of the issues and the dynamics of activities made it almost
impossible for many small and, in particular, small developing countries, to
follow Internet governance policy processes. As a result, some small states
have supported a one-stop-shop structure for Internet governance issues.12
The sheer size of the agenda and the limited policy capacity of developing
countries in both their home countries and in their diplomatic missions
remains one of the main obstacles for their full participation in the process.
The need for capacity building in the field of Internet governance and policy
was recognised as one of the priorities for the WSIS Tunis Agenda for the
Information Society.
Internet governance a variable geometry approach
Internet governance requires the involvement of a variety of stakeholders who differ

in many aspects, including international legal capacity, interest in particular Internet
governance issues, and available expertise. Such variety may be accommodated by
using the variable geometry approach implied in Article 49 of the WSIS Declaration,13
which specifies the following roles for the main stakeholders:
P States policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues (including
international aspects).
P The private sector development of the Internet, both in the technical and
economic fields.
P Civil society important role on Internet matters, especially at the community
level.
P Intergovernmental organisations the coordination of Internet-related public
policy issues.
P International organisations development of Internet-related technical standards
and relevant policies.
The business sector14
When ICANN was established in 1998, one of the main concerns of the
business sector was the protection of trademarks. Many companies were faced
with cybersquatting and the misuse of their trademarks by individuals who
were fast enough to register them first. In the process of creating ICANN,
business circles clearly prioritised dealing with the protection of trademarks
and, accordingly, this issue was immediately addressed once ICANN was
created, by the establishment of the Universal Dispute Resolution Procedures
(UDRP).
185
Internet Governance
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), well known as the main association
representing business across sectors and geographic borders, positioned itself
as one of the main representatives of the business sector in the global Internet
governance processes. The ICC was actively involved in the early WGIG negotiations
and WSIS, and continues to be an active contributor in the current IGF process.
Today, with the growth of the Internet, the interest of business in Internet
governance has become wide and diverse, with the following main groups
of business companies: domain name companies, ISPs, telecommunication
companies, and Internet content companies.
Domain-name companies
Domain-name companies include registrars and registries who sell Internet
domain names (e.g. .com and .net). The main actors in this sector include
VeriSign and Afilias. Their business is directly influenced by ICANNs
policy decisions in areas such as the introduction of new domains and
dispute resolution. It makes them one of the most important actors in the
ICANN policy-making process. They have also been involved in the broader
Internet governance policy process (WSIS, WGIG, the IGF) with the main
objective of reducing the risk of a potential take-over of ICANNs role by
intergovernmental organisations.
Internet service providers (ISPs)

Since ISPs are the key online intermediaries, it makes them particularly
important for Internet governance. Their main involvement is on a national
level in dealing with government and legal authorities. On a global level, some
ISPs, particularly from the USA and Europe, have been active in the WSIS/
WGIG/IGF processes individually and through national and regional or
sector-specific business organisations such as the Information Technology
Association of America (ITAA), and others.
Telecommunication companies
These companies facilitate Internet traffic and run the Internet infrastructure.
The main actors include companies such as Verizon and AT&T. Traditionally,
telecommunication companies have been participating in international
telecommunication policy through the ITU. They have been increasingly
involved in the activities of ICANN and the IGF. Their primary interest in
186
Internet governance is to ensure a business-friendly global environment for

the development of an Internet telecommunication infrastructure. Over the
last few years, ETNO has positioned itself as an active actor, especially on
questions such as net neutrality.15
Internet content companies

Google, Facebook, and Twitter are increasingly active in Internet governance.
Their core business model could be directly affected, for example, by
government arrangements related to data protection and privacy. Content
producers, such as Disney, are also prominent players, concerned about
preserving the global outreach and dominance of its products and models
for local content development, as well as to protect its copyrights globally.
Business priorities of these companies are closely linked to various Internet
governance issues, such as intellectual
property, privacy, cybersecurity, and net See Section 2 for further
neutrality. Their presence is increasingly discussion on cybersecurity
and net neutrality and Section 3
noticeable in the global Internet governance
for further discussion on IPR and
processes, including through funding to
privacy
multistakeholder forums such as the IGF.
Civil society
Civil society has been the most vocal and active promoter of a multistakeholder
approach to Internet governance. The usual criticism of civil society participation
in previous multilateral forums had been a lack of proper coordination and the
presence of too many, often dissonant, voices. In the WSIS process, however,
civil society representation managed to harness this inherent complexity
and diversity through a few organisational forms, including a Civil Society
Bureau, the Civil Society Plenary, and the Content and Themes Group. Faced
with limited possibilities to influence the formal process, civil society groups
developed a two-track approach. They continued their presence in the formal
process by using available opportunities to participate and to lobby governments.
In parallel, they prepared a Civil Society Declaration as an alternative vision to
the main declaration adopted at the Geneva WSIS.16
NGOs and WSIS
NGO participation in WSIS was relatively low. Out of close to 3000 NGOs that have
consultative status with the UN ECOSOC, only 300 participated in WSIS.
187
Internet Governance
Due to WGIGs multistakeholder nature, civil society attained a high level of

involvement. Civil society groups proposed eight candidates for WGIG, all
of whom were subsequently appointed by the UN Secretary General. In the
Tunis phase (the second phase of WSIS, after Geneva), the main policy thrust
of civil society organisations shifted to WGIG, where they influenced many
conclusions as well as the decision to establish the IGF as a multistakeholder
space for discussing Internet governance issues.
Civil society has continued to be actively involved in IGF activities. One of

the sui generis forms of civil society representation in Internet governance
processes is the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). It includes individuals
interested in sharing opinions, policy options and expertise on Internet
governance issues, which are discussed in a mailing list format.
Civil society organisations are active in almost all Internet governance

topics from infrastructure development through to economic models to
rights and freedoms mainly focusing on protection of public interests.
Many organisations employ experts and academics with solid knowledge
and understanding of Internet specificities, which often provides valuable
contributions to the decision-shaping process.
Recently, there has been division among civil society organisations concerning
protection of the global public interest. Some members of civil society, in
particular from developing countries, see a stronger government role as a
way to counterbalance the enormous power of the Internet industry. Civil
society from developed countries, on the other hand, often allies itself with the
Internet industry and the technical community, especially on the issue of the
free flow of data.
International organisations
The ITU was the central international organisation in the WSIS process. It
hosted the WSIS Secretariat and provided policy input on the main issues.
ITU involvement in the WSIS process was part of its ongoing attempt
to define and consolidate its new position in the fast-changing global
telecommunications arena, increasingly shaped by the Internet. The ITUs
role has been challenged in various ways. It was losing its traditional policy
domain due to the WTO-led liberalisation of the global telecommunications
market. The latest trend of moving telephone traffic from traditional
telecommunications to the Internet (through VoIP) further reduced the ITUs
regulatory footprint on the field of global telecommunications.
188
The possibility that the ITU might have emerged from the WSIS process as
the de facto International Internet Organisation caused concern in the USA
and in some other developed countries, while garnering support in some
developing countries. Throughout WSIS, this possibility created underlying
policy tensions. It was particularly clear in the field of Internet governance,
where tension between ICANN and the ITU had existed since the
establishment of ICANN in 1998. WSIS did not resolve this tension. With
the increasing convergence of various communication technologies, it is very
likely that the question of the ITUs more active role in the field of Internet
governance will remain on the global policy agenda; it is already active in the
field of cybersecurity.
Another issue concerned the anchoring of the multidisciplinary WSIS

agenda within the family of UN specialised agencies. Non-technical aspects
of communications and Internet technology, such as social, economic, and
cultural features, are part of the mandate of other UN organisations. The most
prominent player in this context is UNESCO, which addresses issues such as
multilingualism, cultural diversity, knowledge society, and information sharing.
The balance between the ITU and other UN organisations was carefully
managed. The WSIS follow-up processes also reflect this balance, with the
main players including the ITU, UNESCO, and the UNDP.
The technical community
The technical community includes institutions and individuals who have

developed and promoted the Internet since its inception. Historically,
members of the technical community were mainly linked to US universities,
where they worked primarily to develop technical standards and establish the
basic functionality of the Internet. The technical community also created the
initial spirit of the Internet, based on the principles of sharing resources, open
access, and opposition to government involvement in Internet regulation.
From the beginning, its members protected the initial concept of the Internet
from intensive commercialisation and extensive government influence.
Terminology
Other terms are used interchangeably with technical community, such as

Internet community, Internet developers, Internet founders, Internet fathers, and
technologists. The term technical community is used in the WSIS declarations and
other policy documents.
189
Internet Governance
In the context of international relations, the technical community could be

described as an epistemic community.17 The early technical community was
coordinated by a few, mainly tacit, rules and one main formal procedure
Request for Comments (RFC). All main and basic standards of the Internet
are described through RFCs. While they did not have a strict regulation or
formal structure, the early Internet communities were governed by strong
custom and peer-to-peer pressure. Most participants in this process shared
similar values, appreciation systems, and attitudes.
The early management of the Internet by the technical community was

challenged in the mid-1990s after the Internet became part of global social
and economic life. Internet growth introduced a group of new stakeholders,
such as the business sector, that came with different professional cultures and
understanding of the Internet and its governance, which led to increasing
tension. For example, in the 1990s, Internet communities and the company
Network Solutions18 were involved in the so-called DNS war, a conflict over
the control of the root server and domain name system.
The Internet Society is one of the main representatives of the technical

community. It hosts the IETF, advocates for open Internet and plays an active
role in capacity building.
The technical community has been an important actor in the process of both
establishing and running ICANN. One of the fathers of the Internet, Vint
Cerf, was the Chair of the ICANN Board from 2000 to 2007. Members
of the technical community hold important positions in various ICANN
decision-making bodies.
Nowadays, with almost three billion users, the Internet has outgrown the
ICANN-based policy framework focusing on the technical community as the
main constituency. Following this argument, as the line between citizens and
Internet users blurs, greater involvement of governments and other structures
representing citizens is required, rather than those representing Internet users
only, frequently described as the technical community. Those who argued for
more government involvement in Internet governance used this approach of
representing citizens rather than Internet users and communities.
The technical community usually justifies its special position in Internet

governance by its technical expertise. It argues that ICANN is a mainly
technical organisation and, therefore, technical people using technical
knowledge should run it. With the growing difficulty of maintaining ICANN
as an exclusively technical organisation, this justification of the special role of
190
the technical community has faced frequent challenge. It is very likely that
the members of the technical community will gradually integrate into the
core stakeholder groups, mainly civil society, business, and academia but also
governments.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and

Numbers (ICANN)
ICANN is the main Internet governance institution. Its responsibility is

to manage the core Internet infrastructure, which consists of IP addresses,
domain names, and root servers. Growing interest in the role of ICANN
developed in parallel with the rapid growth of the Internet in the early 2000s
and ICANN came to the attention of global policy circles during the WSIS
process (20022005).
While ICANN is one of the main actors in the Internet governance field,
it does not govern all aspects of the Internet. It is sometimes, although
erroneously, described as the Internet government. ICANN manages the
Internet infrastructure, but it does not have direct authority over other
Internet governance issues, such as cybersecurity, content policy, copyright
protection, protection of privacy, maintenance of cultural diversity, or bridging
the digital divide.
ICANN is a multistakeholder institution involving a wide variety of actors in

different capacities and roles. They fall into four main informal groups.
P Actors that have been involved since the days when ICANN was
established, including the technical community, the business community,
and the US government.
P International organisations, with the most prominent roles played by the
ITU and WIPO.
P National governments whose increasing interest in having a bigger role in
ICANN started with the WSIS process.
P Internet users (the community at large).
ICANN has experimented with various approaches in order to involve

Internet users. In its early days, the first attempt was to involve Internet
users through direct elections of their representatives to ICANN governing
bodies. It was an attempt to secure ICANNs legitimacy. With low turnout
and misuse of the process, the direct vote failed by not providing real
191
Internet Governance
representation of Internet users. More recently, ICANN has been trying

to involve Internet users through an at-large governance structure. This
organisational experiment is essential for ensuring ICANNs legitimacy.19
ICANNs decision-making process was influenced by early Internet

governance processes based on bottom-up, transparent, open, and inclusive
approaches. One main difference between the early technical community of
the 1980s and the current ICANN decision-making context is the level of
social capital. In the past, the technical community had high levels of mutual
trust and solidarity that made decision-making and dispute resolution much
simpler than it is now. The growth of the Internet extended to millions of
new users and new stakeholders, far beyond the early technical community.
Consequently, this fast growth of the Internet reduced the social capital that
existed in its early days. Thus, frequent proposals by the technical community
to keep the earlier, informal, decision-making process on the Internet has
not been realistic. Without social capital, the main way of ensuring a fully
functional decision-making process is to formalise it and to develop various
checks-and-balance mechanisms.
Some corrections to decision-making procedures have already been made

to reflect this changing reality. The most important was the 2002 reform
of ICANN, which included strengthening the Governmental Advisory
Committee (GAC) and abandoning the direct voting system.
The issues
Technical vs policy management

The dichotomy between technical and policy management has created
continuous tension in ICANNs activities. ICANN has portrayed itself as a
technical coordination body for the Internet that deals only with technical
issues and stays away from the public policy aspects of the Internet. ICANN
officials considered this specific technical nature as the main conceptual
argument for defending the institutions unique status and organisational
structure. The first Chair of ICANN, Esther Dyson, stressed that: ICANN
does not aspire to address any Internet governance issues; in effect, it governs
the plumbing, not the people. It has a very limited mandate to administer
certain (largely technical) aspects of the Internet infrastructure in general and
the DNS in particular.20
Critics of this assertion usually point to the fact that no technically neutral
solutions exist. Ultimately, each technical solution or decision promotes
192
certain interests; empowers certain groups; and affects social, political, and
economic life. The debate on issues such as the .xxx (adult materials) clearly
illustrated that ICANN has to deal with public policy aspects of technical
issues. The final statement from the NETmundial meeting recommends
that further discussions related to ICANN and IANA address the adequate
relation between the policy and operational aspects.10 Dealing with the new
gTLDs will push ICANN further towards addressing public policy issues.
ICANNs international status

The special ties between ICANN and the US government have been a major
focus of criticism, which takes two main forms. The first form relates to
the global accountability of ICANN and rests on principle considerations,
stressing that the vital element of the global Internet infrastructure, which
could affect all nations, be supervised by one country alone. This criticism was
apparent during the WSIS process and was enhanced by general suspicion
of US foreign policy after the military intervention in Iraq. Typical counter-
argument is based on the historical fact that the Internet was created in the
USA with the US governments financial support. Consequently, according to
this argument, this gives the US government the moral grounds to decide on
the form and tempo of the globalisation of Internet governance. This approach
is particularly powerful in the US Congress, which has opposed any such
globalisation and especially the leading roles of other governments (a model
referred to as internationalisation by proponents of multilateral approach).
The second criticism of special ICANN-USA ties rests on practical and legal
considerations. Since ICANN is a US-based legal entity, it has to obey US
law. Some of these laws may affect the regulation of ICANNs global facilities.
Critics of the USAs role usually quote an example of sanctions: If the US
judiciary exercises its role and properly implements the sanctions regime
against Iran and Cuba, it could force ICANN as a US private entity to
remove country domains for those two countries from the Internet. According
to this argument, by retaining the Iranian and Cuban domain names, ICANN
is breaching US sanctions law. While removal of country domain names
has never happened, it remains a possibility given the current legal status of
ICANN.
Next steps
A new phase of the status of ICANN was initiated by the NTIA
announcement on 14 March 2014. Both key issues dealing with public
policy matters and globalisation could be settled by changing the status of
ICANN, which would reduce the ambiguities and improve the clarity of its
193
Internet Governance
mission. The future development of ICANN will require innovative solutions,

including the possibility of transforming ICANN into a sui generis global set-
up; this would preserve all the advantages of the current ICANN structure as
well as address shortcomings, particularly the problems of accountability and
international legitimacy. Inspirations for such creative solutions can be found
in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement that has proven
mechanisms to integrate various stakeholders in an internationally legitimate
policy framework that balances public interests and private initiatives.
194
Endnotes
1
The Brazilian model of the management of its country domain name is usually taken as a
successful example of a multistakeholder approach. The national body in charge of Brazilian
domains CGI is open to all users, including government authorities, the business sector,
and civil society. Brazil gradually extended this model to other areas of Internet governance,
especially in the process of the preparation for IGF 2007, which was hosted in Rio de
Janeiro.
2
Graud A (1954) The rise and fall of the Anglo-French Entente. Foreign Affairs. Available
at http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/71095/andre-geraud-pertinax/rise-and-fall-
of-the-anglo-french-entente [accessed 15 August 2014].
3
Lesage C (1915) La rivalite franco-britannique. Les cables sous-marins allemands Paris. p.
257258; quoted in: Headrick D (1991) The Invisible Weapon: Telecommunications and
International Politics 18511945 Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 110.
4
US Secretary of State criticising the ITU for the initiative: without authorization of
member governments to hold a global meeting involving an unauthorized expenditure of
resources and concluding international agreements. Quoted in Drake W. (2004) Reframing
Internet Governance Discourse: Fifteen Baseline Propositions, p. 9. Available at http://www.
un-ngls.org/orf/drake.pdf [accessed 14 August 2014].
5
ICANN (no date) Affirmation of Commitments. Available at https://www.icann.org/
resources/pages/aoc-2012-02-25-en [accessed 15 August 2014].
6
ICANN (2014) Administrator of the Domain Name System launches global
multistakeholder accountability process. Available at https://www.icann.org/resources/
press-material/release-2014-03-14-en [accessed 15 August 2014].
7
Internet World Stats (no date) Internet usage in the European Union. Available at http://
www.internetworldstats.com/stats9.htm [accessed 14 August 2014].
8
EU Commission (2013) Antitrust: Commission seeks feedback on commitments offered by
Google to address competition concerns. European Commission IP/13/371. Available at
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-371_en.htm [accessed 15 August 2014].
9
Rousseff D (2013) Statement by H. E. Dilma Rousseff, president of the Federative
Republic of Brazil, at the opening of the general debate of the 68th Session of the United
Nations General Assembly. Available at http://www.un.int/brazil/speech/13d-PR-DR-
68-AG-Abertura-Ing.html [accessed 14 August 2014].
10
NETmundial (2014) NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement. Available at http://
netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-
Document.pdf [accessed 15 August 2014].
11
Segal A (2013) Cyberspace cannot live without sovereignty, says Lu Wei. Available at
http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2013/12/10/cyberspace-cannot-live-without-sovereignty-
says-lu-wei/#cid=soc-twitter-at-blogs-cyberspace_cannot_live_without-121013
195
Internet Governance
12
The convenience of one-stop shopping was one of the arguments for establishing the ITU
as the central Internet governance player.
13
WSIS (2003) Declaration of principles. Available at http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/
geneva/official/dop.html [accessed 15 August 2014].
14
Valuable comments were provided by Ayesha Hassan.
15
ETNO Website (no date) European Telecommunications Network Operators Association.
Available at https://www.etno.eu/ [accessed 15 August 2014].
16
WSIS Civil Society Plenary (2003) Shaping information societies for human needs.
Available at http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf
17
The technical community fulfils all the criteria in Peter Haass definition of an epistemic
community: a professional group that believes in the same cause and effect relationships,
truth tests to accept them, and shares common values; its members share a common
understanding of the problem and its solutions. Haas P (1990) Saving the Mediterranean:
the politics of international environmental co-operation. New York: Columbia University Press,
p. 55.
18
The technology company Network Solutions www.networksolutions.com was founded
in 1979. The domain name registration business was the most important division of the
company; the company diversified its portfolio to include web services for small businesses.
19
ICANN (no date) ALAC. Available at http://atlarge.icann.org/alac [accessed 15 August
2014].
20
Esther Dysons response to Ralph Naders Questions (15 June 1999). Available at http://
www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dyson-response-to-nader-15jun99.htm [accessed
14 August 2014].
196
Section 8
Annex
Internet Governance
198
Annex
Annex
199
Internet Governance
The Internet governance cube
The Internet governance cube is a visualisation of Internet governance

processes.
The WHAT axis is related to the ISSUES of Internet governance (e.g.

infrastructure, copyright, and privacy). It highlights the multidisciplinary
nature of Internet governance issues.
The WHO axis of the cube focuses on the main ACTORS (states, international
organisations, civil society, the private sector). This is the multistakeholder aspect.
The WHERE axis of the cube deals with the FRAMEWORK in which
Internet issues should be addressed (self-regulatory, local, national, regional,
and global). This is a multileveled approach to Internet governance.
When we move pieces in the Internet governance cube we get the

intersection HOW. This is the section of the cube that can help us to
see how particular issues should be regulated, both in terms of cognitive
techniques (e.g. analogies) and in terms of legal instruments (e.g. soft law,
treaties, and declarations). For example, one specific intersection can help us
to see HOW privacy issues (WHAT) should be addressed by governments,
business, and civil society (who) at regional level (WHERE).
Separate from the Internet governance cube is a fifth component WHEN.
200
Annex
DiploFoundation is a non-profit organisation which works towards inclusive

and effective diplomacy. It was established in 2002 by the governments of
Malta and Switzerland. Diplos activities revolve around, and feed into, our
focus on education, training, and capacity building:
P Courses: We offer postgraduate-level academic courses and training

workshops on a variety of diplomacy-related topics for diplomats, civil
servants, staff of international organisations and NGOs, and students
of international relations. Our courses are delivered through online and
blended learning.
P Capacity building: With the support of donor and partner agencies, we

offer capacity-building programmes for participants from developing
countries in a number of topics including Internet Governance, Human
Rights, Public Diplomacy and Advocacy, and Health Diplomacy.
P Research: Through our research and conferences, we investigate topics

related to diplomacy, Internet governance, and online learning.
P Publications: Our publications range from the examination of

contemporary developments in diplomacy to new analyses of traditional
aspects of diplomacy.
P Software development: We have created a set of software applications

custom designed for diplomats and others who work in international
relations. We also excel in the development of online learning platforms.
Diplo is based in Malta, with offices in Geneva and Belgrade.
For more information about Diplo, visit http://www.diplomacy.edu
201
Internet Governance
The Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (EDA) and the Federal Office for
Telecommunications (BAKOM) have initiated the Geneva Internet Platform
(GIP), which fulfils the mission of an observatory, a capacity building centre
(online and in situ), and a centre for discussion. The GIP is hosted and
operated by DiploFoundation.
The GIPs activities are implemented based on three pillars:

P A physical platform in Geneva
P An online platform and observatory
P An innovation lab
The GIPs special focus is on assisting small and developing countries to
meaningfully particpate in Internet governance processes. The support is
tailored for the needs of these actors, including training, awareness building,
consultations and briefings.
For more information on the GIPs activities please consult

http://www.giplatform.org or write to gip@diplomacy.edu
202
Annex
About the author

Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director
of DiploFoundation and head of the
Geneva Internet Platform. He is a
former diplomat with a professional and
academic background in international
law, diplomacy, and information
technology. In 1992, he established
the Unit for Information Technology
and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean
Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta.
After more than ten years of training, research, and publishing, in 2002 the
Unit evolved into DiploFoundation.
Since 1994, Dr Kurbalija has been teaching courses on the impact of ICT/
Internet on diplomacy and ICT/Internet governance. Currently, he is
visiting lecturer at the College of Europe in Bruges and the University of
St Gallen. He has lectured at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic
Studies in Malta, the Vienna Diplomatic Academy, the Dutch Institute
of International Relations (Clingendael), the Graduate Institute of
International and Development Studies in Geneva, the UN Staff College,
and the University of Southern California. He conceptualised and currently
directs DiploFoundations Internet Governance Capacity Building
Programme (20052014). Dr Kurbalijas main research interests include
the development of an international regime for the Internet, the use of
the Internet in diplomacy and modern negotiations, and the impact of the
Internet on modern international relations.
Dr Kurbalija has published and edited numerous books, articles, and

chapters, including: The Internet Guide for Diplomats, Knowledge and
Diplomacy, The Influence of IT on Diplomatic Practice, Information Technology
and the Diplomatic Services of Developing Countries, Modern Diplomacy and
Language and Diplomacy. With Stefano Baldi and Eduardo Gelbstein, he
co-authored the Information Society Library, a set of eight booklets covering
a wide range of Internet-related developments.
jovank@diplomacy.edu
203
Internet Governance
204
The history of this book is long, in Internet time. The For easy reference: a list of frequently
original text and the overall approach, including used abbreviations and acronyms
the five-basket methodology, were developed
Society Library, a Diplo initiative driven by Stefano gTLD generic Top-Level Domain
Baldi, Eduardo Gelbstein, and Jovan Kurbalija. HTML HyperText Markup Language
Special thanks are due to Eduardo Gelbstein, who IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
made substantive contributions to the sections ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers
to Vladimir Radunovic, Ginger Paque, and Stephanie
Technology
Gelbstein, and Vladimir Radunovic all contributed
significantly to developing the concepts behind
the illustrations in the book. In 2008, a special,
Introduction to Internet Governance, was published ISOC Internet Society
in cooperation with NIXI India on the occasion of ISP Internet Service Provider
the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2008 held in ITU International Telecommunication Union
Hyderabad, India. In 2009, a revised third edition IXP Internet eXchange Point
was published in the cooperation with the Ministry MoU Memorandum of Understanding
of Communication and Information Technology of OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development
was produced in partnership with the Secretariat PKI Public Key Infrastructure
of the Africa-Caribbean-Pacific Group of Countries S&T Science and Technology
and the European Union. The fifth edition (2012) SGML Standard Generalized Markup Language
was published in cooperation with the Azerbaijan sTLD sponsored Top-Level Domain
Diplomatic Academy (ADA). TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol/
Internet Protocol
Property Rights
Policy
For easy reference: a list of frequently The history of this book is long, in Internet time. The
used abbreviations and acronyms original text and the overall approach, including
AN INTRODUCTION TO the five-basket methodology, were developed
AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE

INTERNET
GOVERNANCE
gTLD generic Top-Level Domain Society Library, a Diplo initiative driven by Stefano
HTML HyperText Markup Language Baldi, Eduardo Gelbstein, and Jovan Kurbalija.
IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Special thanks are due to Eduardo Gelbstein, who
ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned made substantive contributions to the sections
Names and Numbers
Jovan Kurbalija
AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE Jovan Kurbalija to Vladimir Radunovic, Ginger Paque, and Stephanie
Technology
An Introduction to Internet Governance provides a comprehensive overview Gelbstein, and Vladimir Radunovic all contributed
of the main issues and actors in this field. The book is written in a clear and significantly to developing the concepts behind
accessible way, supplemented with numerous figures and illustrations. It the illustrations in the book. In 2008, a special,
ISOC Internet Society focuses on technical, legal, economic, development, and sociocultural aspects
Introduction to Internet Governance, was published
ISP Internet Service Provider of Internet governance, providing a brief introduction, a summary of major in cooperation with NIXI India on the occasion of
ITU International Telecommunication Union questions and controversies, and a survey of different views and approaches the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2008 held in
IXP Internet eXchange Point for each issue. The book offers a practical framework for analysis and Hyderabad, India. In 2009, a revised third edition
Jovan Kurbalija
MoU Memorandum of Understanding was published in the cooperation with the Ministry
discussion of Internet governance.
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation of Communication and Information Technology of
and Development
PKI Public Key Infrastructure Since 1997 more than 1500 diplomats, computer specialists, civil society
was produced in partnership with the Secretariat
S&T Science and Technology activists, and academics have attended training courses based on the text and of the Africa-Caribbean-Pacific Group of Countries
SGML Standard Generalized Markup Language approach presented in this book. With every delivery of the course, materials and the European Union. The fifth edition (2012)
sTLD sponsored Top-Level Domain are updated and improved. This regular updating makes the book particularly was published in cooperation with the Azerbaijan
TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol/ Diplomatic Academy (ADA).
Internet Protocol
useful as a teaching resource for introductory studies in Internet governance.
Property Rights
Policy
6th Edition
6th Edition

An Introduction To IG - 6th Edition PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

An Introduction To IG - 6th Edition PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

For easy reference: a list of frequently The history of this book is long, in Internet time.

AN INTRODUCTION TO the five-basket methodology, were developed

AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE

Malta: Anutruf, Ground Floor,

Cover: the Argument by Design www.tabd.co.uk

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under

Section 2: The infrastructure and standardisation basket . . . . . . . . 33

Section 3: The legal basket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Section 4: The economic basket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Section 5: The development basket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Section 6: The sociocultural basket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Section 7: Internet governance actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Section 8: Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

In 2004, when I told my friends what I was doing as a member of WGIG

It is my hope that this book provides a clear and accessible introduction to

The underlying objective of such a diverse approach is to modestly contribute

Therefore, this book does not attempt to provide definite statements

What does Internet governance mean?

Internet governance is the development and application by Governments,

Internet or internet and diplomatic signalling

The question of writing Internet/internet with an upper or lowercase i re-emerged

The terminological confusion was further complicated by the translation

The evolution of Internet governance

[the Internet] is inherently extra-national, inherently anti-sovereign and

The DNS war (19941998)

key infrastructure of the Internet, decided to subcontract the management

The Word Summit on the Information Society (20032005)

After prolonged negotiations and last-minute arrangements, the first WSIS

The IGF was truly a multistakeholder event with participation of states,

The third main development in 2006 was the ITU Plenipotentiary

In 2008, network neutrality8 emerged as one of the most important Internet

by President Obama. Network neutrality is mainly supported by the socalled

The highlight of 2009 was the conclusion of the Affirmation of Commitments

Internet and its governance popped up on political radars worldwide

On 27 January, Egyptian authorities cut access to the Internet in a vain hope

Hillary Clintons initiative on freedom of expression on the Internet, initiated

2011 was also marked by the avalanche of Internet governance principles

ICANN went through significant developments in 2012 with the

including development of responsible multistakeholderism, frank recognition

The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT)

Other notable developments registered in the intellectual property rights area,

The question of protection of privacy was addressed by many leaders during

In October 2013, Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff and ICANNs president

Prefixes: e- / virtual / cyber / digital

Continued over >

Prefixes: e- / virtual / cyber / digital continued

The Internet Governance Cognitive Toolkit

The Internet Governance Cognitive Toolkit is a set of tools for developing

In many cases, the common reference framework is influenced by the specific

helps in facilitating better communication and understanding. It can also

The Internet governance regime is complex as it involves many issues, actors,

The toolkit reflects the nature of Internet governance, as a so-called wicked

Approaches and patterns

A number of approaches and patterns have gradually emerged, representing

Narrow vs broad approach

Technical and policy coherence

Old-real vs new-cyber approach

For example, in legal discussions, Figure 2

The new-cyber approach

Decentralised vs centralised structure of Internet governance

Protection of public interests on the Internet

Geography and the Internet

Another example of fast technology changes is the relevance of spam. Back